Ellis Medicine Unveils New Tool to Enhance Patient Safety

SCHENECTADY, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

In an ongoing effort to improve patient safety, Ellis Medicine is the first hospital in the region, second in the state, to use Xenex's innovative germ-zapping technology to keep patients even safer from infections.

We have zero-tolerance for hospital-acquired infections, stated David Liebers, M.D., Chief Medical Officer at Ellis Medicine. Ellis Medicine has a strong infection prevention program in place right now and were already lowering infection ratesin fact, most are below state and national rates, but we want to do even better. Were taking this additional step to provide our patients with an extra layer of protection, he added.

"Were always looking for innovative ways to provide even better, safer care and improve outcomes," remarked Eve Bankert, Director, Infection Prevention and Control, Ellis Medicine. Xenex is the newest weapon in our arsenal. At Ellis, were declaring war on hospital acquired infections with this advanced technology.

Xenex Healthcare Services portable room disinfection device pulses blue ultraviolet light throughout the patient room to quickly destroy viruses, bacteria and bacterial spores typically in about 5-10 minutes. Ellis will use the device after thorough cleaning by housekeeping staff of rooms where patients with infectious conditions have stayed.

"Our housekeepers currently follow Center for Disease Control and state DOH protocol when cleaning patient rooms and they do a good job," said Joe Salvione, Director of Environmental Services at Ellis Medicine. Xenex will support those efforts by providing our patients with an extra measure of disinfection, he added.

Studies show the Xenex room disinfection system is consistently 20 times more effective than standard chemical cleaning practices.

The Xenex system was first deployed in late 2010, meaning our early customers have now had enough time to calculate the impact Xenex is having on infection rates, explains Dr. Mark Stibich, Chief Scientific Officer of Xenex. In one hospital in Northampton, Mass, Clostridium difficile (C. diff) rates dropped 67% percent after adding UV light disinfection to their cleaning process.

Xenexs UV room disinfection technology will help Ellis Medicine further reduce the presence of bacteria - including C. diff- a stubborn bacteria thats been on the rise in New York State and in hospitals across the country in recent years. Ellis has already achieved a dramatic drop in C. diff cases from 2011 to 2012 by aggressively focusing additional resources on preventing its transmission from patient to patient. The most current stats show Ellis with a 50% lower rate of C. diff infection than the state average.

The C. diff germ can be found in the community and can be transmitted when a patient is in any health care facility, including a hospital or a nursing home. C. diff is a bacterium that causes inflammation of the colon and can live in an environment for months.

Original post:

Ellis Medicine Unveils New Tool to Enhance Patient Safety

Random Flu Thoughts

I normally write the first draft of this blog the weekend before it is due, and this is no exception.  However, I am ill this weekend.  Headache, myalgias., painful cough, but only mildly ill.  The worst part is the interferon induced brain fog; my thoughts flow with all the speed of pudding and I was not appreciably better as the week progressed, although no cracks about how  you can’t any difference in my writing over baseline.

I doubt the cause of my symptoms is influenza.  According to the CDC site and Google flu trends there is little influenza activity in the US at the moment, so it is probably one of the innumerable viruses that can cause a flu-like illness.  I am also not ill enough to think I have influenza, but I could be having a modified course as I was vaccinated a month ago.  Of course, the doctor who treats herself has a fool for a patient and an idiot for a doctor. Flu season approaches, so from my interferon addled brains, flu thoughts.

Flu Vaccine Efficacy

The flu vaccine has a bad reputation  in part because it is not the best of our vaccines for preventing illness and those who need vaccination the most are the least likely to respond.  Still, I was happy to see the Lancet meta-analysis this month on the efficacy of the influenza vaccine, although it breaks no new ground. It was a nice paper in that they only included studies where  influenza confirmed by culture or real-time polymerase chain reaction, not the clinical diagnosis of influenza.

We screened 5707 articles and identified 31 eligible studies (17 randomised controlled trials and 14 observational studies). Efficacy of TIV was shown in eight (67%) of the 12 seasons analyzed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 59% [95% CI 51—67] in adults aged 18—65 years). No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 2—17 years or adults aged 65 years or older. Efficacy of LAIV was shown in nine (75%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 83% [69—91]) in children aged 6 months to 7 years. No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 8—17 years. Vaccine effectiveness was variable for seasonal influenza: six (35%) of 17 analyses in nine studies showed significant protection against medically attended influenza in the outpatient or inpatient setting. Median monovalent pandemic H1N1 vaccine effectiveness in five observational studies was 69% (range 60—93).
Interpretation
Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking. LAIVs consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years). New vaccines with improved clinical efficacy and effectiveness are needed to further reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality.”

Seems on an order of efficacy with seat belts, which decrease death by 70% and injuries by 40%.   Neither the seat belt nor the flu vaccine is perfect, but both are better than no intervention at all.  The largest problem with the vaccine is the difficulty in choosing the correct strains every year to be in the vaccine. If the JREF ever has a million dollar winner, I hope the new millionaire would use their powers for good and predict the upcoming years influenza strains.

A Universal Flu Vaccine

There is ongoing work to improve the flu vaccine, which is what we really need.  The problem with influenza is that it mutates. In the argot of the field it has antigenic drift, so that the organism at the end of the flu season does not antigenically resemble the strain at the beginning of the season and antigenic shift, where there is a whole new strain unknown to world, as happened with H1N1.

There are sections of protein of the virus that do not mutate, regions that are highly conserved, and if those proteins  could be isolated perhaps there would be a universal vaccine against all influenza strains.  And someone is on track to do just that:

To answer that question, Corti et al. screened 104,000 peripheral-blood plasma cells from eight recently infected or vaccinated donors for antibodies that recognize each of three diverse influenza strains: H1N1 (swine-origin influenza) and H5N1 and H7N7 (highly pathogenic avian influenzas). From one donor, they isolated four plasma cells that produced an identical antibody, which they called FI6. This antibody binds all 16 HA subtypes, neutralizes infection, and protects mice and ferrets from lethal infection. The most broadly reactive antibodies that had previously been discovered recognized either one group of HA subtypes or the other, highlighting how remarkable FI6 is in its ability to target the gamut of influenza subtypes.”

That was a lot of work, but now that they have discovered the key to neutralizing all influenza, the challenge is to develop a vaccine that promote a reaction to that antigenic site and, viola, a universal flu vaccine.  I hope we see it in my lifetime. It explains why if there is poor match between the vaccine and circulating influenza there is still efficacy, although decreased, from the vaccine. The lucky few will make antibody to the conserved areas common to all viruses and develop protective antibody in a mismatch year.  Vaccine response is always more subtle than one antigen/one antibody.

It really surprises me that this advance is coming from basic science work on the immunology of influenza, I would have anticipated this kind of breakthrough would have come from NCAAM, which has been on the cutting edge of improving patent care and quality initiatives. Like, um, er, well, the brain fog is preventing me from recalling the advances.

Flu Stats

Humans always have difficulties comprehending large numbers.  Politics, and life, is small and local. If an event did not happen to you and yours then often it wasn’t important.  I am used to thinking about large numbers and influenza, but they do not have the same impact compared to what happened in my own ICU with the initial H1N1 outbreak: all beds filled, all ventilators in use and no place to put the next case which, by some random luck, never occurred. The pandemic affected millions; I remember my 30 cases.

The CDC released estimates (and they are estimates, based to best data and models.  If the CDC develops a better technique and changes the numbers, they are not “backing away” from the prior estimates, a phrase that always identifies someone who is both against vaccines and does not understand the tentative nature of all data) on both the effect of the H1N1 pandemic on the US:

43 million to 89 million cases, 195,000 to 403,000 hospitalizations, and 8,900 to 18,300 deaths, including 910 to 1,880 deaths among children aged <18 years, during April 2009–April 2010.

as well as the estimates for what the vaccine accomplished

713,000 to 1.5 million cases, 3,900 to 10,400 hospitalizations, and 200 to 520 deaths were averted as a result of the vaccination campaign.

Not bad prevention considering 61 million Americans received the vaccine, a paltry 1 in 5.

Flu and Pregnancy

There are people who have a marked increased risk of dying from influenza, including the obese and pregnant women (not pregnant men, I hasten to add living in Oregon).  1% of the population is pregnant, but  in 2009 pregnancy accounted for 5% of H1N1 deaths.

It is difficult to convince  pregnant women to get the vaccine, since people have an understandable fear of anything that could adversely affect the pregnancy. The data available suggests that not only is the vaccine safe in pregnancy but maternal vaccination protects the child against influenza.  There is no data to suggest that the flu vaccine increases the risk of miscarriage and some reports suggest that influenza is associated with premature delivery.  The effect of influenza infections on pregnancy outcomes has had little evaluation.

There was an interesting epidemiological study this month in JID on the 1919  pandemic that suggested that about 1 in 10 pregnant women had a first trimester miscarriage from influenza

…documented an unusual 5%–15% decline in natality with a trough 6.1–6.8 months after the peak of the severe autumn 1918 pandemic wave in several Scandinavian countries and the United States. On average, 2.2 births per 1000 persons were missing during spring 1919, corresponding to an excess of ~1 in 10 pregnant women infected with influenza during their first trimester having miscarried in autumn 1918. We argue that the most parsimonious explanation for this unusual and temporal birth depression is substantial pregnancy losses following influenza infection in autumn 1918 among women who were then in their first trimester of pregnancy.

Whether vaccination would prevent miscarriage is unknown, but there is strong biologic plausibility to suggest it could.   Vaccination benefits often extend beyond the simple concept of one vaccine preventing or ameliorating one infection. There is also all the positive consequences of not having an infection, from potentially avoiding a miscarriage to not having a heart attack.

Moral Imperitive

I am an Infectious Disease blogger over at Medscape and every October I publish a deliberately obnoxious essay on the flu vaccine.  The essay is addressed to fellow Health Care Workers (HCW), and does somewhat come from the heart.

Here is my opinion.

Patients in the hospital are particularly vulnerable.  They are a population at risk from their care providers. About 1 in 5 cases of influenza are subclinical, hospitalized patients are more susceptible to acquiring influenza from HCW’s than the general population,  and 27% of nosocomial acquired H1N1 die.

As HCW’s,  it is our responsibility to our patients to maximize their safety when under our care.  While not perfect, the influenza vaccine is a reasonable intervention to prevent the spread of flu from HCW to patient.  Since HCW’s have ready access to the worlds literature and the best minds in medicine, if HCW’s use any of the standard excuses to avoid the flu vaccine and increase the risk of their patients they are, well, a Dumb Ass. We owe it to our patients to keep them safe.

There was a program a few years back to try an increase the hand hygiene rates in the hospital by enlisting the patients help.  It is “OK to ask” if your HCW had washed their hands.  I thought from the beginning the idea was bankrupt, and would anyone fly on an airline where it was “OK to ask” if the wheels are down when landing?  I took an informal poll of patients on a medical unit and it was unanimous.  Everyone understood what “It’s OK to ask” referred to, and not a one would ever ask their doctor or nurse if they washed their hands for fear of making them angry.  And really, who wants to piss off the person responsible for their morphine?

Be that as it may, I would suggest that, during flu season, if you or someone you love is in the hospital, ask if their providers are vaccinated against the flu.  Remember that being in the hospital probably means you are one of the groups unlikely to benefit from the flu vaccine and that your best protection is to not acquire influenza from others.  If your HCW has not received the vaccine, ask for a new provider or, at a minimum, request they wear a mask while involved with your care.  I know it will never happen, but there is a lot to be said for public pressure to alter behavior.  I have been half thinking about starting a web site to promote the idea, but I haven’t the time.

Dumb Associations

While a blog aimed at medical providers, Medscape apparently has a fair number of Dunning-Kruger amateurs who have taken offense at my suggestion that the vaccine is a good thing for health care providers and their excuses for avoiding vaccination are not grounded in reality.  Again, the blog was not directed towards patients, but HCW’s, and since the comments are anonymous, there is no way of really knowing who is commenting.

There are two broad themes as to why people refuse the vaccine. One is straight from Bizarro World: there is a cabal of government, pharma, and doctors whose sole purpose in giving the vaccine is to line the pockets of big pharma and keep people ill.  This is a delusional state so at odds with the reality to which I am accustomed, and evidently so common, I am surprised there is no DSM entry for the disorder and there are no clinical descriptions of the phenomena.  Most articles that address vaccine refusal have similar reasons.

Predictors of vaccine noncompliance were fear of needles (P ? 0.042), fear of getting sick from the vaccine (P ? 0.000), disbelief that the vaccine is effective (P ? 0.000), ignoring vaccination as a healthy behavior (P ? 0.000), and younger age (P ? 0.026).

and do not mention the paranoid medical-industrial conspiracy delusion that seems to be at the heart of a vocal subset of vaccine refusers.  I make no money from giving the flu vaccine or from promoting the flu vaccine.  Promoting the flu vaccine, like much of my professional life, is counter-productive to making money.  I make money, and can prescribe with abandon to line the pockets of my corporate masters, only when people are admitted with the flu.   At least, in the other Bizarro world where people have health insurance.  Not always my world.  The last thing I would want to do financially is prevent influenza.

Association is Not Causation

The other theme is that they, or someone they knew, had the vaccine and shortly thereafter had some adverse reaction attributed to the vaccine.  Like the paranoid conspirators, the idea that the vaccine caused the subsequent disease is not amenable to logical refutation. It is a motto in the skeptical world that association is not causation, but it is a concept that is paid little attention.

Humans underestimate the role of randomness in their life and I  recommend the Drunkards Walk as an excellent book on the topic.  You have to know the background rate of events to know if there is an increased rate associated with a vaccine as a hint that the vaccine is potentially causative.   For example

On the basis of the reviewed data, if a cohort of 10 million individuals was vaccinated in the UK, 21·5 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome and 5·75 cases of sudden death would be expected to occur within 6 weeks of vaccination as coincident background cases. In female vaccinees in the USA, 86·3 cases of optic neuritis per 10 million population would be expected within 6 weeks of vaccination. 397 per 1 million vaccinated pregnant women would be predicted to have a spontaneous abortion within 1 day of vaccination.

Random badness happens and it takes an immense, and for some impossible, effort of will to ignore what appears to be an association. Take, as example, death.  People die.  People get the vaccine.  A hefty segment of those who get the vaccine are at risk of dying from underlying diseases.  So you would predict that there would be a cluster of people who will die shortly after receiving the vaccine, but not due to the vaccine, as if anyone would be convinced otherwise:

In October 2006, four deaths occurred in Israel shortly after influenza immunization, resulting in a temporary halt to the vaccination campaign. After an epidemiologic investigation, the Ministry of Health concluded that these deaths were not related to the vaccine itself and the campaign resumed; however, vaccine uptake was markedly reduced. Estimates of true background mortality in this high-risk population would aid in public education and quell unnecessary concerns regarding vaccine safety. We used data from a large HMO to estimate mortality in influenza vaccine recipients aged 55 and over during four consecutive winters (2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006). Date of immunization was ascertained from patient treatment files, vital status through Israeli National Insurance Institute data. We calculated crude death rates within 7, 14 and 30 days of influenza immunization, and used a Cox Proportional Hazards Model to estimate the risk of death within 14 days of vaccination, adjusting for age and comorbid conditions (age over 75, history of diabetes or cardiovascular disease, status as homebound patient) in 2006. The death rate among influenza vaccine recipients ranged from 0.01 to 0.02% within 7 days and 0.09-0.10% at 30 days. Influenza immunization was associated with a decreased risk of death within 14 days after adjustment for comorbidities (Hazard ratio, 0.33, 95% CI, 0.18-0.61). Our findings support the assumption that influenza vaccination is not associated with increased risk of death in the short term.”

Yet I know, and you know, that any event after a vaccine will be credited to the vaccine, even, as with death, the preponderance of data points to the influenza vaccine decreasing mortality.

It Was Better Back in the Day

As a grumpy old fart who thinks that medical training was better back in my day, I have one piece of data in support of that assertion.  An abstract at IDSA, and reported in Medscape suggests

“that more recent graduates were 15% less likely than older graduates to believe that vaccines are effective. The younger graduates were also less likely to believe that inactivated or oral polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccines are safe.

Great.  I suppose that my initial hypothesis was wrong.  Having access to the worlds literature and the best minds in medicine is not so conducive to understanding the benefits of vaccines. Given the other nonsense taught in medical schools that is given the patina of respectability, what should I expect?

FacebookGoogle BuzzDigg<!--<!--LinkedInStumbleUponLiveJournalShare

Spinal Fusion: Chiropractic and Subluxation

A spirited exchange about chiropractic arose in response to a recent post proposing “The Cure” for the legalization of implausible and unproven diagnostic methods and treatments. Some comments pointed to the implausibility of the chiropractic “subluxation” and the lack of robust evidence of efficacy/effectiveness for spinal manipulation, as well as the difficulty of understanding what exactly “chiropractic” is, or does, that distinguishes it from other manual therapists.  In response, other comments were posted positing that the Science-Based Medicine blog “is not informed  on contemporary chiropractic practice,” that “the profession does not support [the chiropractic] subluxation as a cause of disease,” that chiropractors who treat the chiropractic subluxation are “on the fringe,”  and that the chiropractic “subluxation” is no longer taught in chiropractic colleges as a clinically relevant concept, but merely as an artifact of chiropractic history.

However, a review of recent chiropractic literature does not appear to support the latter opinions.  The same concerns as raised on SBM are shared by chiropractors themselves and are discussed in articles appearing in peer-reviewed chiropractic journals. Nor is the chiropractic literature as sanguine on the demise of the chiropractic “subluxation” as a clinically relevant condition which is both diagnosable and treatable.

Despite the concerns expressed by chiropractors themselves, the chiropractic literature continues to discuss the chiropractic “subulxation” as if it were a clinically relevant condition subject to diagnosis and amenable to treatment for both non-musculoskeletal and musculoskeletal conditions.  This same view of the “subluxation” is taught in chiropractic colleges in North America and Australia.

Chiropractic 101: the subluxation

A June, 2011, article in the journal Chiropractic and Manual Therapies explored, as the title explains, The prevalence of the term subluxation in North American English-language Doctor of Chiropractic Programs.  The authors, one from the School of Education at the Indiana Institute of  Technology and the other a D.C. on the faculty of Bridgeport College of Chiropractic in Connecticut and the School of Chiropractic and Sports Science at Murdoch University in Australia, studied the academic catalogs of 16 North American chiropractic colleges for use of the term “subluxation.”  The authors chose these catalogs as an indication of “what domains of knowledge are taught in the  classroom and what domains are evaluated in assuring student competence.”

Their conclusion?

The concept of the subluxation in chiropractic is a controversial subject with a paucity of evidence. With the exception of three schools, all English-language DCPs [Doctor of Chiropractic Programs] in North America mention the concept of the subluxation either in course titles or descriptions and/or their respective missions. Despite the lack of evidence for the subluxation construct, it appears to be very much a key part of chiropractic education.

Some schools may state that they are not subluxation-focused or heavily engaged in the teaching of subluxation. Nonetheless, most schools continue to teach about the subluxation in what seems to be more than just a historical context. We believe that this puts the profession in an awkward position because the skeptic and/or critic of subluxation can point to chiropractic education as outdated and unscientific. Chiropractic education will have to address this issue if the chiropractic education enterprise wishes to become scientifically competitive with other healthcare sciences and produce graduates who are critical thinkers prepared as the evidence changes to change their practice and throughout their careers.

The authors specifically rejected the notion that the subluxation was taught simply as an historical concept:

One might argue that a historical presentation of the subluxation may be all we are finding references to in our research of the DCP curricula. This would be a reasonable argument if the subluxation was mentioned in only one course in a DCP program or if it was only in what was described as a philosophy course. This, in fact, only occurred at two colleges (Texas Chiropractic College and the University of Bridgeport College of Chiropractic), however, with an aggregate average of 13.5 appearances [in the catalogs] and many of those in technique classes it seems unlikely that this is purely to explain the history of [the] term in the chiropractic profession.

In support of their conclusions, the authors referenced other research finding:

  • Over 88% of chiropractors surveyed favored retaining the term vertebral subluxation complex.
  • Over 70% of chiropractors reported that subluxation is important to their clinical decisions and guides their clinical care of patients.
  • A strong majority (over 75%) believed that subluxation was a significant contributing factor 50% or more of visceral disorders.

The article concluded with a prediction that just the sort of examination of current statutory scope of practice for chiropractors I’ve been advocating could occur: “Future research should determine if changes in regulation and research change the prevalence of the use of the term subluxation in chiropractic curricula.” [Emphasis added.]

A closer look at Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College

Despite the fact that the study found “no mention of the term subluxation” at Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College [CCMC] another article in the chiropractic literature,  Attitudes of clinicians at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College towards the chiropractic management of non-musculoskeletal conditions, revealed that “although the concept of chiropractic treatment for non-MSK conditions is controversial, students at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College . . . are exposed to a variety of opinions on the subject.”  In a survey of clinicians supervising interns at one of six clinics in the Toronto area, all of whom had been educated at CMCC, 50% either “agreed” or “strongly agreed”  that chiropractic could be effective for the treatment of asthma, chronic pelvic pain, constipation, dysmennorhea, infantile  colic and vertigo.”

This study was published in the Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, which describes itself as “the official, peer reviewed, quarterly research publication of the Canadian Chiropractic Association.”

To understand the significance of 50% figure, one must realize that the referenced treatment of non-MSK conditions by chiropractors is subluxation-based:  the detection of spinal “misalignments” and their “correction” through adjustments.”   Without ever using the term “subluxation,” this is evident in the article’s explanations for treatment of various non-MSK conditions.  [Note also the improper use of “case studies” as “evidence.”]

Asthma:

Chiropractic treatment [that is, adjustments] has been thought to be beneficial in the treatment of this condition as it posited that it may modify the autonomic system and elicit viscerosomatic reactions to it. Additionally, it has been hypothesized that misalignments at the levels of the upper C-spine create spinal reflexes that can induce asthma and correcting the misalignments could potentially alleviate the symptoms.

Constipation:

In a study conducted by Alcantara and Mayer on three pediatric patients, they found successful resolution of the condition after a regiment [sic] of spinal manipulative therapy by observing an increased frequency in bowel movements, with less straining and pain. Similarly, a case study done of a 64 year old Caucasian female demonstrated a positive resolution to chronic constipation after ten treatments of spinal manipulative
therapy.

Infantile colic:

Since an‘adjustment’ theoretically causes sympathetic stimulation which, based on physiology, in turn relaxes the smooth muscle of the gastrointestinal tract, reduces peristalsis, and inhibits bowel function, infantile colic could be  effectively treated through manual therapy.

Vertigo:

A retrospective study conducted by Elster showed 100% positive response with either symptoms having improved or completely reversed within one to six months of care using a treatment plan of upper cervical adjustments.

In sum, while the CCMC does not openly mention the chiropractic subluxation in its academic catalog, its students are trained by chiropractors who accept the existence and clinical significance of the subluxation and the utility of detecting and correct it for a variety of conditions, as described in an article which wholly fails to question the concept.

National University of Health Sciences

Another institution which, according to the study of academic catalogs, did not mention the subluxation is the National University of Health Sciences (NUHS), which educates naturopaths and acupuncturists as well as chiropractors.    However, had the authors examined a broader range of the school’s literature in divining support for the chiropractic subluxation and its putative effect on human health they would have found it in the form of the Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, published by NUHS and described on the school’s website thus:

Published quarterly, this peer-reviewed indexed journal meets the modern-day chiropractic physician’s need for practical and cutting-edge information with concrete clinical applications.

A review of the first 25 articles, published  during 2010-2011 (a full fifteen of which were case reports) appearing in a
PubMed search for the Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, turned up the  following:

Applied  kinesiology methods for a 10-year-old child with headaches, neck pain, asthma,  and reading disabilities:

According to  Quackwatch, “applied kinesiology is a pseudoscience based on the anatomically  and physiologically impossible notion that muscle-testing enables the  practitioner to determine ‘weaknesses’ of organs throughout the body that  ‘correspond’ to nutrients placed under the tongue.” Application of various  applied kinesiology diagnostic methods and treatments is described in this  Journal of Chiropractic Medicine article, including:

Insalvation refers to the fact that the taste buds on the tongue can detect extremely small concentrations of substances within a fraction of a second of stimulation. Oral nutrient evaluations are used in AK because they are clinically useful in the assessment process. Exposure to taste elicits a variety of neurologic, muscular, digestive, endocrine, cardiovascular, thermogenic, and renal responses . . . [T]here is considerable evidence in the literature of extensive efferent function throughout the body from stimulation of the gustatory and olfactory receptors with actual insalivation . . . Insalivation of choline (a component of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine) corrected this finding.” [It is unclear what “finding” was “corrected.”]

In a swipe at the  patient’s pediatrician, the article adds:

The previous treatments did not deal directly with the craniosacral system, nor did they appear to evaluate adequately the sensory input into the nervous system from the musculoskeletal and viscerosomatic system (adrenal glands and lungs). Applied kinesiology theory suggests that to resolve biomechanical, biochemical, psychosocial, and sensory problems, many areas of the body must be examined and corrected to achieve long-lasting symptomatic relief.

Cessation of  cyclic vomiting in a 7-year-old girl after upper cervical chiropractic care: a  case report.  The lead author is an  Assistant Professor at Palmer College of Chiropractic.  From the abstract:

A 7-year-old girl had a history of cyclic vomiting episodes for the past 4 ½ years. She also had a 2-month history of headaches and stomachache. . . The patient received low-force chiropractic spinal manipulation to her upper cervical
spine. [As described in the article, “The directional misalignment was determined as an anterior-right misalignment by using pediatric Duff analysis on her upper cervical radiographs.”] There was improvement in her symptoms within an hour after the chiropractic manipulation. . . This case study suggests that there may be a role for the use of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for treating cyclic vomiting syndrome.

Use of multimodal  conservative management protocol for the treatment of a patient with cervical  radiculopathy.  The author is an  Assistant Professor in the Department of Chiropractic at D’Youville College,  Buffalo, NY.  The article describes  chiropractic treatment following “Gonstead chiropractic protocols”  of a patient with a disk protrusion at C5-C6.  Here’s a description of the Gonstead  System from the Gonstead Clinical Studies  Society, quoted in Keating JC, Charlton KH,  Subluxation: Dogma or Science?  Chiropractic & Osteopathy. Vol. 13, August 10, 2005:

Minor displacements of the spinal bones, known as vertebral subluxations, can cause endangering stress to the spinal cord which acts as the main line of intelligence for the whole body. These displacements, or subluxations, are the cause of many of the unwanted health conditions that people suffer from every day. Although there have been many valuable techniques that have been developed in the chiropractic profession, the Gonstead System is considered a ‘gold standard’ for chiropractic techniques because of its record of safety and effectiveness in correcting vertebral subluxation . . .

In addition to  the articles describing “subluxation”-based treatment, of these 25 most recent  articles in the Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, three discussed diagnostic  techniques for the detection of chiropractic “subluxations.”

Standard  deviation analysis of the mastoid fossa temperature differential reading: a  potential model for objective chiropractic assessment.  The author is an Assistant Director of  Research at Sherman College of Chiropractic:

The mastoid fossa  temperature differential (MFTD) reading is described as having been used in  chiropractic since the 1950s.  A  temperature is obtained, without making contact, in the mastoid fossa area on  both sides.  An MFTD “is calculated by  subtracting the mastoid fossa temperature on one side from the other  side.”  While “the clinical significance  of the MFTD readings has yet to be determined,” nevertheless “one method for  interpreting MFTD readings is with pattern analysis, where an abnormal set of  baseline readings are identified and thought to be related to the condition  known as vertebral subluxation.”

Computer modeling  of selected projectional factors of the 84-in focal film distance  anteroposterior full spine radiograph compared with the 40-in film distance  sectional views.  Two of the authors are  chiropractors in private practice and also involved in research at the Gonstead  Clinical Studies Society:

While  acknowledging that the role of the full-spine anteroposterior full spine  radiograph is “controversial,” the authors conclude that “working knowledge of  the A-P full spine view is important . . . [as it] may be used for scoliosis
evaluation; and additionally, there are doctors of chiropractic who use the A-P  full spine as part of their assessment when viewing of the full spine.”  And what might they be “assessing” in the  “full spine?”  Although not specifically
admitted in the article,  full-spine  radiographs are used by chiropractors for the “detection” of   “subluxations.”  Peterson DH, Bergmann TF, Chiropractic  Technique, Principles and Procedures,  2nd ed. (Mosby 2002), 75-79.

Geometry of  colplanar stereoscopic radiographic pairs for analysis of the lateral cervical radiograph: a study using mathematical models.  The author is a Research Assistant Professor at Sherman Chiropractic  College.  The article is of interest only  to those who use X-rays to detect the presence of cervical “subluxations.”

In sum, a review  of the most recent 25 articles in the NUHS- published Journal of Chiropractic  Medicine reveals that NUHS has hardly rejected the chiropractic subluxation,  even though its academic catalogue does not mention the term.

Life University College of Chiropractic

A recent article  about chiropractic education shows how instruction in the detection and  correction of subluxations is part and parcel of the core training of  chiropractic students at Life University College of Chiropractic.  The article, Self-Perceived Skills  Confidence:  An Investigative Study of  Chiropractic Students in the Early Phases of a College’s Clinic Program, was  written by an Associate Professor at this chiropractic school.   Categories of student self-assessment  surveyed for the article

. . . were those used in the early clinical curriculum. They included radiograph interpretation of the pelvis, occiput, atlas, and vertebral spine, using full-spine listings (Gonstead type) with the spinious process as a reference, and descriptive listings (fixation, malposition, misalignment, restriction) with the vertebral body as a reference, and motion palpation assessment of the corresponding anatomical areas.

Spinal manipulation categories were those used in the clinical curriculum. They included basic manual intersegmental full-spine (Gonstead-type) and diversified procedures . . .

This description  is, quite literally, a textbook example of student training in the detection  and correction of the chiropractic “subluxation.” Scaringe JG, Gaye, LJ,  Palpation: The Art of manual Assessment (Chapter 10), Scaringe JG, Cooperstein  R, “Chiropractic Manual Procedures (Chapter 12) in  Redwood D, Cleveland CS, eds., Fundamentals
of Chiropractic (Mosby 2003).   It was  accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed chiropractic journal, the Journal
of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (May/June 2010), and won a  chiropractic research reward.

More  “subluxation” in recent chiropractic literature

The chiropractic journal articles  summarized above demonstrate that the chiropractic “subulxation” is still  taught in North American chiropractic colleges as a clinically relevant  condition capable of “detection” and “correction.”  They also show that the putative  “subluxation” is uncritically presented as such in current peer-reviewed chiropractic  literature.

Even those chiropractic  journals which appear to be more oriented toward an evidence-based assessment  of manual therapies have recently published articles which uncritically accept  subluxation-based chiropractic diagnostic techniques and therapies. In addition  to the articles noted above, we find:

From the Journal  of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics:

Interexaminer  reliability of supine leg checks for discriminating leg-length inequality  (2011):  Discusses functional leg-length  inequality,” a bogus diagnostic method used to determine “subluxations.”

A retrospective  study of chiropractic treatment of 276 Danish Infants with infantile colic  (2010):  Without ever describing the  proposed mechanism of action by which “chiropractic manipulation” is purported  to affect infantile colic, reaches the conclusion that “the findings of this  study do not support the assumption that effect of chiropractic treatment of  infantile colic is a reflection of the normal cessation of this disorder.”

Running posture  and step length changes immediately after chiropractic treatment in a patient  with xeroderma pigmentosum (2009): “A 5-year-old female patient with XP (type  A) volunteered to participate in the experiment with the consent of her parents  . . . [T]he patient was assessed for spinal dysfunction and adjusted (full  spine) using diversified techniques . . .  Adjustments were delivered in an attempt to correct any or all of the  spinal dysfunctions that the clinician [a chiropractor] found at the time of  the experiment.”

Journal of the  Canadian Chiropractic Association:

Chiropractic care  for patients with asthma: A systematic review of the literature (2010):  States, without criticism of the lack of  scientific plausibility underlying the concept, that “in treating asthmatic  patients, the objective of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (high  amplitude, low velocity thrusts) is  . . . to affect nervous system activity.”

Chiropractic care  of a pediatric patient with symptoms associated with gastroesophageal reflux  disease, fuss-cry-irritability with sleep disorder syndrome and irritable  infant syndrome of musculoskeletal origin (2008):  “it was determined that the patient had  spinal segmental dysfunctions of the atlas and the 4th thoracic vertebrae.  The atlas was determined to have a right  posterior rotation and right laterally malposition with respect to the C2  vertebral body (VB).  The 4th thoracic VB  had a posterior malposition with respect to C3VB.  Following craniosacral technique procedures,  cranial distortions of the right parietal and temporal bones were determined as  well as aberrant motion of the mandible at the right temporomandibular joint  (TMJ).” And so on.

More criticism of  chiropractic, by chiropractors

Admirable for  their criticism of the “subluxation,” other recent articles in the literature  critical of chiropractic reveal the “subluxation’s” continued presence in the  current practice of chiropractic in North America and in Australia.   As well, they demonstrate that some of the  same criticisms of chiropractic posted on SBM have been expressed by
chiropractors themselves.

An article  published in Chiropractic and Manual Therapies this year, authored by 3  chiropractic academics, found that “patients searching the Internet for  chiropractic wellness information will often find a lot of poorly done, useless
information that will not help them maintain health or become well.”  Significant to our discussion here, of the
sample studied:

  • 77% of sites  contained information on chiropractic “subluxation”
  • 60% had  information on “innate”
  • 34% contained  obvious anti-vaccination information
  • 34% had  information that was anti-drug (prescription or medical use of drugs)

The authors  concluded that “the depth of information on the sites analyzed was poor and was
rarely evidence-based.”

Another article,  published in Chiropractic and Osteopathy (as the journal Chiropractic and  Manual Therapies was formerly named) in 2010 surveyed a sample of  non-practicing chiropractors and their reasons for leaving chiropractic practice.  Due to the small sample size  and low rate of response, the authors state that “generalizations to broader populations should be made with caution.”  Yet, the results reveal a notable congruence between the negative opinions about chiropractic expressed on SBM and those who had actually left  the practice of chiropractic:

  • 80% agreed that  business ethics in chiropractic were perceived as questionable.
  • 62% disagreed  with the statement that chiropractic education is an asset when pursuing  another career.
  • 60% agreed that  dogma and philosophy of chiropractic were reasons to abandon active practice.
  • 71% believed that  associates in a chiropractic practice are often encouraged to prolong the care
    of patients.
  • 74% believed that  the chiropractic profession lacked cultural authority.
  • 58% agreed that  the political problems in chiropractic were factors in being perceived as a
    quality clinician.

This frustration  with chiropractic was shared in another recent article in the same journal  authored by an Australian chiropractor and based on a lectured delivered at the  Annual Conference of the Chiropractic & Osteopathic College of Australasia,  in 2010.  The author bemoans the fact  that

  • The Chiropractors  Association of Australia (CCA) “actively promotes subluxation based  chiropractic.”
  • “Chiropractic  trade publications and so-called educational seminar promotion material often  abound with advertisements of how practitioners can effectively sell the VSC  [vertebral subluxation complex] to an ignorant ublic.”
  • The CCA and the  Australian Spine Research Foundation (ASRF) “are promoting ‘wellness care,’  which involves the detection and adjustment of VSC’s,” noting a recent  statement in the ASRF’s newsletter  that  “. . .  it is not possible to be well if  vertebral subluxation complex is present as a vertebral subluxation complex  represents a non-homeostatic state . . . . which makes a state of wellness  impossible.”
  • Of the three  chiropractic teaching institutions in Australia, the program at RMIT University
    promotes what the author calls “the subluxation myth.”

Conclusion

Criticisms of  chiropractic on Science-Based Medicine are not the reflection of  misunderstanding of contemporary chiropractic  practice in that, according to chiropractic literature:

Subluxation dogma  continues to be a part the education and training of chiropractors in North American and Australia.

Subluxation-based  chiropractic remains an integral part of chiropractic practice in North America  and Australia, as demonstrated by the uncritical acceptance of articles  discussing its implausible diagnostic methods and treatments in peer-reviewed  chiropractic journals, its presence in surveys of chiropractic practice in  peer-reviewed chiropractic literature, as well as the aforementioned inclusion  in chiropractic education.

 

FacebookGoogle BuzzDigg<!--<!--LinkedInStumbleUponLiveJournalShare

Potential market for alternative medicine left untouched

A few days ago, I had the good fortune to share lunch and ideas with David Gorski and Kimball Atwood.  Kimball was on his way from a talk at Michigan State to one at Brigham and Women’s, one of the country’s best-known teaching hospitals.  David was planning a future talk for a group in Florida.  These guys have been thinking and writing about alternative medicine for a lot longer than I, and it was great to pick their brains, toss around ideas, and just hang out on a nice fall day.

We were discussing many of the inanities of so-called alternative medicine touted for use in “real” diseases, that is, not just symptomatic care.  There have been, for example, an number of studies out of China in the last few years claiming that acupuncture helps with in-vitro fertilization. All of these studies have been terribly flawed, and the reasons for these flaws are interesting, but irrelevant beside the primary flaw:  the ideas are so implausible as to render any conclusions invalid.   It is very difficult to understand how acupuncture in any of its forms could improve chances of conception, either in vivo or in vitro.

During our visit, Kimball brought up a rather interesting analogy:  if acupuncture could increase fertility, shouldn’t it also be able to decrease it?  We have scads of alternative treatments for the common cold, back pain, headache, multiple sclerosis, diabetes—everything, really.  Why not contraception?  After all, no one likes condoms, and the pill comes with its own baggage.  Nuva rings and IUDs are convenient, but can be annoying to use, or can cause problems in certain patients.   And almost all contraception relies solely on the woman.  The only possible contribution a man can make is condom use or vasectomy.

Where is the alternative medicine community?  They are usually pretty keen on getting involved in common medical problems.  Undesired pregnancy is a common problem.  Where are the studies on acupuncture for contraception?  Homeopathy?  Chiropractic?

How would these treatments look?  Acupuncture could perhaps stimulate the qi involved with spermatogenesis, causing a feedback inhibition, right?  Homeopathy, well, if a lot of sperm heading to the egg are the cause of pregnancy, then a little bit of sperm should do the trick I’d think.  You could even put them in a lozenge. And with vertebral subluxations able to cause all manner of medical problems, shouldn’t a good chiropractor be able to shove around a vertebra, impeding sperm production or release?  Contraception is big business.  Where are these guys?

Let me very clear that I am a traditionalist when it comes to contraception, preferring those methods that have been proven safe and effective.  I don’t give medical advice online, but I might make an exception here.

Speaking of implausible, after looking at some of Kimball’s slides, I wanted to do this just for giggles.

Common cuts of beef vs. Reflexology chart

Common cuts of beef


FacebookGoogle BuzzDigg<!--<!--LinkedInStumbleUponLiveJournalShare

Return of an old foe

In 2000, a panel of experts was brought together by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). They came to discuss whether measles was still endemic in the United States, that is whether it still existed in the general background of US infectious diseases. They concluded that measles had been eradicated in the US, and that the occasional cases imported from abroad were stopped by a wall of vaccinated Americans.

Welcome to the future. The US is in the middle of its largest measles outbreak since 1996. Most of the cases originated abroad, brought back by unvaccinated travelers, either American residents or foreign visitors. This has so far led to 12 outbreaks (that is, a cluster of three or more connected cases) mostly among the unvaccinated. Of the 139 cases who were US residents rather than foreign visitors, twelve had documentation of adequate immunization.

The surprise isn’t that a few cases should slip through the wall of vaccination, but that the wall has so many chinks in it. The number of measles cases being imported, and the falling vaccination rates of Americans may reach the point soon where we no longer need to import our measles as it will once again become endemic.

Measles isn’t just a curious disease that we learned about in medical school (“cough, coryza, conjunctivits”); it’s a serious disease that leads to pneumonia in 1 in 20 children, and brain inflammation in 1 in 1000. Outside the US, it causes hundreds of thousands of deaths yearly.

We must increase our efforts to vaccinate all US residents properly (including undocumented residents). If measles does take hold once again in the U.S., the blame will fall squarely on our health care system’s failure to deliver vaccine, and on those who for whatever reason delay or avoid vaccination altogether.

It used to be that Americans viewed public health battles with excitement, a battle against fear itself, against the fear of children choking to death from whooping cough, or becoming paralyzed by polio. Now, as we sit behind our crumbling shield of vaccination, we have become complacent. If we fail to act, our complacency will be replaced by very real fears, especially for our children.

FacebookGoogle BuzzDigg<!--<!--LinkedInStumbleUponLiveJournalShare

Steven Fowkes (Part 2 of 2): Nutrients for Better Mental Performance

Last week, in part 1, I covered Steven Fowkes’ “cures” for Alzheimer’s and herpes. In part 2, I will cover a video where he goes further afield. It is titled “Nutrients for Better Mental Performance,” but he also discusses sleep, depression, hangovers, and a lot of other topics.

Some of what he says are simple truisms: mental performance is affected by everything related to health such as sleep, food, vitamins, minerals, detoxification, nutrients, amino acids, hormone replacement, pharmaceuticals and herbs. Metabolism is the key to brain function: 3% of the body uses 20% of the energy. Macronutrients, micronutrients, exercise, water, and breathing are important too.

We knew that.

Which nutrients promote optimal brain function? All of them: any deficiency will affect the brain. Fowkes goes beyond the evidence to claim that some nutrients are needed at super-physiological levels; Mother Nature is not optimal. Some supplements appear to work but the effects are not sustainable. It’s not about parts, but about how things work together.

Energy production is essential. Anaerobic metabolism only produces 2 ATP molecules from a glucose molecule compared to up to 38 ATP from aerobic metabolism.  He says this is inadequate. He says it’s enough to support unicellular life but not multicellular life (this is not true: there are multicellular organisms that are obligate anaerobes).  He says it’s not enough to give you robust life, consciousness and a working brain.  So aerobic metabolism is essential to preventing and treating Alzheimer’s.

He shows how a complex cascade of effects from an imbalance between mercury and glutathione affects a series of other processes and leads to Alzheimer’s, and he recapitulates some of the material from his Alzheimer’s video, but this presentation is not about Alzheimer’s: it’s about mental performance in everyone. What nutrients are commonly deficient enough to impair mental performance? The elderly are deficient in melatonin, B12, and pregnenolone. Teenage boys are deficient in zinc. Everyone is deficient in Vitamin D and magnesium. 30% of teenagers have a 10-point IQ increase just from RDA level supplements.

He says some hormones are neuroprotective, but estrogens have an anti-metabolic effect and impair energy production, which explains why women have more stamina than men. This is also why when men get inflammation they produce estrogen and start gaining weight and have more health problems. These statements are taken out of context from research that has little or no clinical significance. In contradiction to numerous published studies, he says estrogen has a profound adverse effect on the brain.

How to Get a Better Night’s Sleep

He has lots of advice for better sleep, from truisms to highly questionable recommendations:

  • Pay attention.
  • Use consistent background sound.
  • Sleep with regularity.
  • Sleep in the dark (melatonin).
  • Wake up with red light to mimic sunrise and sunset.
  • Try tryptophan for serotonin.
  • Eliminate inflammation (from allergy, infection, gut).
    • Balance A and D.
    • Digestive enzymes.
    • Zinc with every meal to tighten up your gut and prevent undigested food particles from passing in and producing inflammation.
  • If a drug is needed, use Xyrem, which is a nutrient and enhances stages 3 and 4, which are decreased or absent in old age. This means you are not really asleep at night. Note: Xyrem is a brand name version of the date rape drug GHB and it has only been approved for the treatment of cataplexy associated with narcolepsy. It can have serious side effects. Ironically, one listed side effect is difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep. It is absurd and dangerous to recommend it as a sleeping pill.
  • Do-it-yourself sleep studies with camcorder — wakenings, breathing, etc. Note: No home studies can replace sleep lab studies, which should be done on anyone suspected of sleep apnea because it can lead to life-threatening complications.

Depression

Alternatives to SSRIs (which he calls SRI’s): B vitamins, correcting mineral deficiencies, discovering unrecognized toxicities like lead toxicity. Most laboratories measure statistical norms, others look at functional needs. Rather than measuring the amount of a mineral, he recommends measuring the function of enzymes that use the mineral. Treat hypothyroidism. He’s had hundreds of clients come to him with thyroid test results and only one was done right. Patient with low normal tests take thyroid and their energy goes up, their depression resolves, they start sleeping better, and they lose weight. Load with neurotransmitter precursors: 5-htp, DLPA. Shift estrogen dominance with iodine therapy to increase estriol which improves infections, etc. Measure estrogen levels in men. Add 5htp or tryptophan to SSRIs to prevent habituation. Note: This is all non-standard advice not supported by evidence. Depression is a potentially life-threatening condition (suicide), and unproven “alternatives” to effective treatment could be dangerous.

Milk is Bad

Raw milk has good fat structure that is destroyed by homogenization; homogenized milk causes irritation of the vascular system. Raw milk is “way better,” but in terms of allergy it may not be better at all. (He doesn’t mention that in terms of infection risk, it is much worse!) Casein, whey, galactose are the problems with milk. Low fat doesn’t help because milk solids are added and they cause cataracts. Milk causes osteoporosis and it causes an inflammatory response in 95% of blacks and 50% of whites. Milk is not a good source of calcium; grain is better. (But he tells us to avoid grain too!)

He recommends a test for milk allergy that is positively bizarre: go off all dairy (including eggs!?) for 2 weeks and then re-challenge with one drop of milk under the tongue. If a metronome synchronized to your body slows down, or if you freak out, or if your pulse rate goes up dramatically, you’re allergic to milk.

Or gullible. The test doesn’t discriminate.

Bread is Bad

Gluten is extremely difficult to digest and undigested gluten protein has an inflammatory effect that causes all kinds of degenerative problems and stress to your gut, and leads to heart disease and probably cancer as well. Corn and red meat are also difficult to digest. And yeast, because we don’t have good enzymes to digest the cell wall.

Avoid grain. Eat a Paleolithic diet (what we are best adapted to): unlimited greens, fruit, nuts, meat when you can kill it. If you have to eat gluten or dairy at Aunt Mildred’s house at Thanksgiving, take digestive enzymes with you to ease the burden.

Questionable Statements

  • Vaccines cause autism (false!)
  • There is a conspiracy to cover up information about natural treatments.
  • Doctors are ignorant.
  • Monitoring urinary pH is a reliable way to monitor acid/base balance and health (Not!)
  • “Subclinical hypothyroidism” is a common problem. (Here he doesn’t even get the terminology right. He attributes a variety of symptoms to a low level of hormone that doesn’t register on blood tests, whereas subclinical means abnormally low on blood tests without any symptoms.)
  • Estrogen/testosterone ratio is a risk.
  • Ketosis treats end-stage organ failure. (No, but ketosis is a result of end-stage kidney failure).
  • If you’re insulin resistant, depending on glucose for energy, your energy is sabotaged: your brain is living on 90 or 70 volts instead of 100 volts. Ketosis puts you back up to 100 volts.
  • Alcohol causes addiction through glucose addiction, serotonin addiction, and NADH addiction.
  • Hangovers can be reliably prevented or cured with vitamin C and cysteine.
  • Nutrasweet (aspartame) is an excitotoxin, an irritant to the brain, and can aggravate calcium toxicity in the brain.
  • He blames epigenetic effects of generations of poor nutrition as the reason that “There’s a lot of falling apart going on around us: autism is way up, brain cancer is way up.” (They aren’t way up; and besides, he already blamed autism on vaccines.)
  • Wheat has estrogens that make male animals infertile, for the buffalo.  (!? I’m guessing he meant that plants produce toxins to try to defend themselves against herbivores. I’m pretty sure the male buffalos didn’t go infertile from eating estrogens in wheat. And I think he meant bison.)
  • Mustards have mutagens (Did he confuse Grey Poupon with nitrogen mustard?)
  • Alfalfa sprouts have an ingredient that produces autoimmune disease in humans and chimpanzees. (In fact, alfalfa sprouts have been used to treat autoimmune disease.)
  • Plant toxins are not different from manmade ones, but we are adapted to eating phytotoxins. (If they’re not different, shouldn’t we be equally adapted to both?)
  • If you have residual effects from anesthesia, tell your doctor you need T3 monotherapy.

Some of these are clearly false, some need qualifying, some are speculations mixed with a grain of truth that I didn’t have the time or inclination to untangle.

“Myths to Live By”

He calls his dietary advice “myths to live by” and prefaces it by saying:

I’m not going to say this is all quite scientific, because on some level it’s based on prejudice, philosophy…

  • Low carb vegetables.
  • Eat meat (insects OK) to supply B12 (tiny to moderate amounts, maybe just the bugs in your grain as in India).
  • Cultivate ketosis (go in and out of ketosis weekly or monthly to exercise your metabolism).
  • Consume tropical oils.
  • Eat less carbs and calories than your peers.
  • Assume industry ads are lies.
  • Assume the food pyramid is upside down.
  • Assume your doctor is profoundly ignorant (doctors will never say “I don’t know” – they’ll just make it up).
  • Assume all experts are biased.

He recommends Gary Taubes’ book Good Calories, Bad Calories. He favors low-carb and Paleolithic diets.

Tests?

He recommends nonstandard and unreliable lab tests and do-it-yourself home trials.

  • Ask your doctor for RBC trace mineral profile (30-40 nutrients), normative blood vitamin levels, Spectrocell functional medicine test for nutrients, urine chelation challenge for heavy metals.
  • Try a nutrient and see if you notice a difference. (We all know how reliable “try-it-for-yourself” is!)
  • Cultivate computer games (Tetris, etc.) to measure small differences that you might not notice otherwise.
  • 1 week should be enough to see an effect of supplementing things like B12. (Not!)

He tells an anecdote about a patient who was supposedly almost killed by doctor who gave him potassium based on low blood levels even after the patient and his wife told him the patient was a potassium over-accumulator. The excess potassium needed to normalize his blood potassium test drove him into heart failure and even when he was on digoxin, the doctor wouldn’t admit that he was wrong. The patient had to leave AMA to save his life. Really? “Potassium over-accumulator” is not in my medical dictionary, and Googling for the phrase got only one hit: Fowkes’ video itself.

Bottom Line

I’ll be polite and simply say I do not consider Steven Fowkes to be a reliable source of health information. Some of his facts are wrong, his speculations have not been tested with clinical studies, and some of his advice is frankly dangerous.

 

FacebookGoogle BuzzDigg<!--<!--LinkedInStumbleUponLiveJournalShare

CAM practitioners react to Andrew Weil’s proposal for a board certification for integrative medicine. It isn’t (all) pretty.

About a month ago, I discussed a rather disturbing development, namely the initiative by Dr. Andrew Weil to set up something he was going to call the American Board of Integrative Medicine, all for the purpose of creating a system of board certification for physicians practicing “integrative medicine” (IM), or, as I prefer to call them, physicians who like to integrate pseudoscience with their science, quackery with their medicine. Harsh? Yes. Accurate? Also yes. Unfortunately, many medical centers, both academic and community, are hopping on the IM bandwagon while more and more medical schools are “integrating” pseudoscience into their curricula. While one might expect Josephine Briggs of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) to be cozy with IM, depressingly, even current director of the National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, seems to have fallen into the trap.

As was admitted by Dr. Weil and his colleagues, this decision to create a board certification in IM was a huge about-face in that Weil had always argued that IM should be infused into all specialties of medicine. What happened, of course, is that once again marketing won out over idealism. Dr. Weil was concerned that there were lots of physicians and practitioners out there claiming to practice “integrative” medicine, many of whom had no qualifications in the field. At this point, the wag in me can’t resist pointing out that, given that IM “integrates” pseudoscience with science and that there really are no standards, scientific or otherwise, to guide IM practitioners (mainly because so much of IM is rank pseudoscience), why would this matter? The answer, again, comes down to branding and turf protection.

All of this is why seeing the reactions to Dr. Weil’s initiative from members of the “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) and IM community is very instructive. Fortunately, John Weeks of the Integrator Blog has come through again, quoting over twenty different people, including physicians, naturopaths, chiropractors, journalists, and other IM practitioners in an article entitled, appropriately enough, Integrator Forum: 20 Voices on Weil/U. Arizona and the American Board of Integrative Medicine. Yours truly is even mentioned (disparagingly, of course).

Uncharacteristically (for me), I’ll cut to the chase and tell you the results before I show you some of the quotes (with, of course, my own translation of what the IM-speak really means). Basically, physicians practicing IM tend to love what Dr. Weil is doing. All other practitioners (chiropractors, naturopaths, etc.) hate it. Of course, that’s not a big surprise given that Weil’s plan would in essence cut out all non-physician IM practitioners from being able to call themselves “integrative physicians” or, at the very least, to relegate them to a lower, non-board-certified rung in the practice hierarchy, which, I suspect, was the point all along. Andrew Weil wants IM to be “respectable,” and to him it will only become so if the riff-raff (i.e., non-physicians) are excluded.

A typical reaction from MDs can be found from doctors like Patrick Massey, MD, PhD, the medical director for complementary and alternative medicine for the Alexian Brothers Hospital Network. (Remind me never to use an Alexian Brothers-affiliated hospital) In any case, Dr. Massey, a graduate of Dr. Weil’s IM residency, is very happy:

Certification is a topic that is long overdue.

Integrative medicine is a complex area of medicine that incorporates many aspects of traditional and nontraditional medicine: formal education is important. Considering how many people are blending medicine on their own, it is important for them to have qualified physicians to make sure they are not doing anything dangerous.

It cannot be done by primary care physicians. They are barely able to keep abreast of the recommendations for diabetes, HTN and CAD. Integrative medicine is not remotely in their sphere of expertise, nor the expertise of PAs and NPs, unless specifically trained in integrative medicine.

Again, one wonders what science-based standards exist to guide IM practitioners. I’ve asked the question before many times: When do you choose acupuncture versus, say, homeopathy? Or will MD IM practitioners finally admit that homeopathy is nothing more than pure quackery with no basis in basic or clinical science but a huge basis in prescientific magical beliefs? Or how do you know what herb you should use? Or when is chiropractic more appropriate than other therapies? They don’t know. There’s no real science behind many of the modalities that fall under the rubric of IM.

One physician, Richard “Buz” Cooper, MD, pointed out something that, quite frankly, hadn’t occurred to me but should have:

This is just one more of example of Weil’s entrepreneurial reach. It will enhance his 1,000 hour costly and profitable training program. He is pursuing it through a rump group, the American Board of PHYSICIAN Specialties [ABPS], which “certifies” a few marginal specialties (e.g., urgent care), rather than through the American Board of MEDICAL Specialties [ABMS], the recognized authority, which certifies legitimate specialties and which apparently has turned down the idea of certifying Weil’s Integrative Medicine. Tainting the emerging discipline of Integrative Medicine with ‘Weil’s Entrepreneurism’ will push it in the wrong direction and be a disservice to generations of patients.

You know, I really should have thought of this one myself when I wrote my first post on this issue. Dr. Cooper makes a devastatingly accurate point about how Dr. Weil has chosen to seek board certification for IM through a less-than-respected board, namely the American Board of Physician Specialties. It’s very obvious that the ABMS wouldn’t be interested in Dr. Weil’s plan; so he looked elsewhere. Weeks, ever the Weil apologist, criticizes Dr. Cooper for “personalizing” his commentary against Dr. Weil. While this is to some extent a legitimate point, it’s also legitimate to point out that Dr. Weil’s residency program in IM would become a whole lot more desirable, both to graduating medical students and, more importantly, to the medical schools and residency programs to which Weil franchises his program, if IM became more respected as a specialty and especially if there were a real board certification in the specialty. (The two, of course, often go together.) Moreover, there’s more to personal interest than just money. Weil is an ideologue who wants to spread his “faith” of IM to as many people as possible. Indeed, Weeks basically admits this in response to Dr. Cooper when he points out, “He is investing in something that may swell the historic importance of his work. Big egos are often associated with good things. Who isn’t seeking to have more rather than less positive impact?” And IM is lucrative, as are Weil’s many, many other business interests related to IM.

Interestingly, and perhaps not surprisingly, those most vociferously opposed to Dr. Weil’s program were all chiropractors. I say “not surprisingly” because of the history of battles between chiropractic and the American Medical Association. For example. chiropractor Lou Sportelli comments:

Look at the Medical board of this proposed group, I care not who they are, but what they know. It will take a lot of convincing to get me to believe that this is nothing more than the old medical model at work in three stages.

  1. Condemn
  2. Investigate
  3. Take over

The AMA was notorious for doing this to any thing that was not allopathic. This is their modus operandi and they had been successful with it until folks got wise.

Dr. Weil and his new idea are not so novel, but are highly suspect. Sounds like a lot of hype and no substance

Chiropractor James Winterstein:

[This is] an interesting move on their part. Down deep, I fear it is more of the same – dominance at all costs – in a circumstance over which they have had little control (the interest by the public in alternative medicine). Now, they form a specialty and take it [over]. I hate to say it, but I think that is a likely probability. We have already seen them work toward usurping our ‘tools.’ I don’t like the sound of this, John.

Chiropractor and homeopath Nancy Gahles:

You KNOW [the MDs] will get the juice because they are the REAL doctors. The ones you can trust. What do they even study to make them ‘integrative’? Homeopathy? NO. Functional medicine…betcha! Little nutraceutical is now the new Big Pharma. Please tell me I am dead off base here, please!

My comment is that this looks like a duck, walks like a duck and acts like a duck: co-opting integrative healthcare, calling it integrative MEDICINE and creating a Board Specialty will identify integrative healthcare with medical doctors and they will own it, be reimbursed for it and thereby drive consumers to use them only as they will get insurance for it.

One notes that Gahles is described as someone who “has been the modern leader in pushing the field of homeopathy into the nation’s health policy dialogue” as the president of the National Center for Homeopathy. I never thought I’d be in partial agreement with a homeopath, but what Gahles says is more or less what I said in my previous post when I pointed out that Weil’s desire to infuse all medical specialties with his woo apparently can’t stand up to the cold, hard reality of how medicine really works. I’ve also pointed out that excluding the real woo, such as homeopathy, from IM is but a tiny first step in trying to make the specialty into something respectable.

Perhaps the most amusing retort from a chiropractor comes from Stephen Marini. Unfortunately, it’s not amusing because it’s a devastating criticism of Andrew Weil and the concept of board certification for IM. It’s unintentionally hilarious because…well, just read for yourself how he describes himself as “a vitalist trained in classical science and conventional medicine” who appreciates “the role of energy/information on an individual’s health and healing processes.” Also note that the link to information on Marini used by Weeks comes from an entry on that repository of all pseudoscience and conspiracy theories Whale.to and that Marini is on the board of directors for the International Chiropractic Pediatric Association (ICPA). With that background, you can truly appreciate Marini’s criticism of Dr. Weil in its proper context:

The concept of a medical specialty in integrative medicine is inherently contradictory. The paradigm of conventional medicine is reductionistic, hierarchical, & mutually exclusive to other paradigms of health and healing. So to ponder the concept of such a medical doctor would require drastic changes on a medical, anthropologic, sociologic, political levels etc…..

What is needed within a complementary system is a new species of health care provider that can appropriately triage a patient with regard to Era 1, Era 2 & Era 3 health care components.

If Era III reminds you of this, you will be forgiven. So what does Marini mean by “Era 3″? Apparently this:

  • Era I Medicine: Allopathic Therapies. Paradigm: CHEMISTRY – STRUCTURE – FUNCTION
  • ERA II Medicine: Holistic/Holoenergetic Therapies. Paradigm: ENERGY – CHEMISTRY – STRUCTURE – FUNCTION
  • ERA III Medicine: Intercessory Therapies. Paradigm: UNIFIED – ENERGY – CHEMISTRY – STRUCTURE – FUNCTION FIELDS

I say this in particular because following another link from the Whale.to entry on Marini leads to a statement that Marini provided to Jochim Shafer, who apparently wrote a book entitled The Trial of the Medical Mafia, in which Marini states bluntly that there ” is no credible scientific evidence to negate the hypothesis that vaccines cause immediate or delayed damage to the immune and nervous systems of children resulting in a rise in auto-immune and neurological disorders including asthma, learning disabilities, hyperactivity, autism, chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, diabetes, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and other diseases.” He concludes that the “universal compulsory vaccination of all healthy children should be halted.”

You know, I think I’ll stick with Era 1 medicine, thank you very much, especially if in Era 3 medicine I have to rely in intercessory therapies and am not allowed to vaccinate children against infectious disease. After all, intercessory prayer has been shown more than once not to work, and vaccines have arguably saved more lives than all other science-based medical interventions combined. Say what you will about Andrew Weil (and we at SBM have certainly said a lot), I’ve never perceived him as being anti-vaccine. Marini clearly is.

In the five weeks or so since I wrote the first installment about Dr. Weil’s initiative to develop a board certification for IM, I’ve thought a bit about what the intent might be and what the consequences might come to be. The more I think about this, the more I think that the chiropractors and naturopaths who don’t like the plan are probably perceiving it quite correctly. It is a dagger aimed right at their hearts, and it is MDs who are holding the hilt. Dr. Weil’s denials notwithstanding, led by Dr. Weil, the pro-woo physician contingent is trying to make sure that no non-physician specialty can claim to be “integrative physicians.” It’s a big deal, too. If you don’t believe just how much it matters to non-physician CAM/IM practitioners to be able to claim the title “physician,” read this revealing article by John Weeks himself.

As I said before, this in and of itself might not be that bad a thing in that many of the practitioners being targeted base their practices on nothing more than prescientific vitalism tarted up with science-y-sounding language. Certainly acupuncturists, chiropractors, homeopaths, and, yes, naturopaths do this. Making it harder for them to practice their non-science-based placebo medicine is probably a good thing, as would be increasing the scientific rigor of what passes for “integrative medicine” now.

Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening. What I do see happening is that, like the Thing in John Carpenter’s famous 1982 movie of the same name, Weil will try to kill off the non-physician “integrative” practitioners but after doing so he will take on their appearance, just as the monster in The Thing took on the appearance of the people it killed. (Hey, it’s Halloween; I had to pick a horror movie metaphor.) In doing so, he will then permanently infect the entire body of academic medicine with the virus that is IM. At least, that is his plan. He has, after all, said as much.

FacebookGoogle BuzzDigg<!--<!--LinkedInStumbleUponLiveJournalShare

“And one more thing” about Steve Jobs’ battle with cancer

I’ve written quite a bit about Steve Jobs in the wake of his death nearly four weeks ago. The reason, of course, is that the course of his cancer was of intense interest after it became public knowledge that he had cancer. In particular, what I most considered to be worth discussing was whether the nine month delay between Jobs’ diagnosis and his undergoing surgery for his pancreatic insulinoma might have been what did him in. I’ve made my position very clear on the issue, namely that, although Jobs certainly did himself no favors in delaying his surgery, it’s impossible to know whether and by how much he might have decreased his chances of surviving his cancer through his flirtation with woo. However much his medical reality distortion field might have mirrored his tech reality distortion field, my best guess was that Jobs probably only modestly decreased his chances of survival, if that. I also pointed out that, if more information came in that necessitated it I’d certainly reconsider my conclusions.

The other issue that’s irritated me is that the quackery apologists and quacks have been coming out of the woodwork, each claiming that if only Steve Jobs had subjected himself to this woo or taken this supplement, he’d still be alive today. Nicholas Gonzalez was first out of the gate with that particularly nasty, unfalsifiable form of fake sadness, but he wasn’t the only one. Recently Bill Sardi claimed that there are all sorts of “natural therapies” that could have helped Jobs, while Dr. Robert Wascher, MD, a surgical oncologist from California (who really should know better but apparently does not) claims that tumeric spice could have prevented or cured Steve Jobs’ cancer, although in all fairness he also pointed out that radical surgery is currently the only cure. Unfortunately, he also used the failure of chemotherapy to cure this kind of cancer as an excuse to call for being more “open-minded” to alternative therapies. Even Andrew Weil, apparently stung by the speculation that Jobs’ delay in surgery to pursue quackery might have contributed to his death, to tout how great he thinks integrative cancer care is.

Last week, Amazon.com finally delivered my copy of Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs. I haven’t had a chance to read the whole thing yet, but, because of the intense interest in Jobs’ medical history, not to mention a desire on my part to see (1) if there were any new information there that would allow me to assess how accurate my previous commentary was and (2) information that would allow me to fill in the gaps in the story from the intense media coverage. So I couldn’t help myself. I skipped ahead to the chapters on his illness, of which there are three, entitled Round One, Round Two, and Round Three. Round One covers the initial diagnosis. Round Two deals with the recurrence of Jobs’ cancer and his liver transplant. Finally, Round Three deals with the final recurrence of Jobs’ cancer and his decline.

Before I start, a warning: I’m going to discuss these issues in a fair amount of detail. If you want “medical spoilers,” don’t read any further. On the other hand, one spoiler I will mention is that there was surprisingly little here that wasn’t reported before; the only difference is that there is more detail. However, the details are informative.

Round One

If there’s one thing I wanted the most information about from this biography, it was more details about Jobs’ initial presentation. After all, I had put my name on the line by arguing that his delay in surgical therapy probably didn’t make that much of a difference, and I was very curious to find out whether there was more information that would allow me to assess whether I should change my initial assessment. I was also interested in whether there was more information about what specific kinds of pseudoscience Jobs had pursued.

I was disappointed on both counts, but that’s not to say that this chapter didn’t provide me with some useful information.

The first thing I learned was the reason Jobs was getting CT scans. Remember, the diagnosis of his cancer was actually serendipitous. It was, as we like to call it, an incidentaloma in that it was an incidental finding on a scan done for a different purpose. In this case, the purpose of the CT scan was to examine his kidneys and ureter, as he had developed recurrent kidney stones beginning in the late 1990s. Jobs attributed them to his working too hard running both Apple and Pixar. In any case, in October 2003, Jobs just happened to run into his urologist, who pointed out that he hadn’t had a CT scan of his urinary system in five years and suggested that he get one. He did, and there was a suspicious lesion on his pancreas. His doctors urged Jobs to get a special CT scan known as a pancreatic scan, which basically provides a lot more detail in the region of the pancreas. He didn’t; it took a lot of urging before he did it, and when he did at first his doctors thought he had standard pancreatic adenocarcinoma, the deadly kind that few survive. As has been reported before, though, Jobs underwent a transduodenal biopsy, and the diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumor was made.

Unfortunately, no further information is provided that we didn’t already know about regarding what Jobs did during the nine months he tried “alternative” therapies. He kept to a strict vegan diet that included large quantities of fresh carrot and fruit juices. (Shades of the Orange Man!) In addition:

To that regimen, he added acupuncture, a variety of herbal remedies, and occasionally a few other treatments he found on the internet or by consulting people around the country, including a psychic. For a while, he was under the sway of a doctor who operated a natural healing clinic in southern California that stressed the use of organic herbs, juice fasts, frequent bowel cleanings, hydrotherapy, and the expression of all negative feelings.

Unfortunately, the natural healing clinic wasn’t identified. I did a bit of searching, but I couldn’t narrow down the possibilities. There’s a lot of woo in southern California. Even so, as much as many of us here would like to condemn Dean Ornish, who was Jobs’ friend, apparently Ornish did try to do right by him:

Even the diet doctor Dean Ornish, a pioneer in alternative and nutritional methods of treating diseases, took a long walk with Jobs and insisted that sometimes traditional methods were the right option. “You really need surgery,” Ornish told him.

Ornish appears for once to have been right.

There’s still more in this chapter. For example, the book states that on a followup CT scan showed that the tumor “had grown and possibly spread.” In addition, the operation that Jobs underwent was described as not being a “full Whipple procedure” but rather a “less radical approach, a modified Whipple that removed only part of the pancreas.” I can only speculate what Isaacson meant by that. A Whipple, standard or not, by definition removes part of the pancreas, specifically the head. Because of the anatomic constraints of the pancreas, the head of the pancreas usually can’t really be removed without removing a significant portion of the duodenum and the common bile duct, and often some small intestine. That’s why, by definition, a Whipple operation includes removing the duodenum and part of the intestine; if those are not removed, then it’s not a Whipple procedure. I suspect that what Isaacson probably meant was a pylorus-sparing Whipple, as I discussed before. In this operation, part of the duodenum is still removed, but not part of the stomach, as in a standard Whipple. The advantage is that a pylorus-sparing Whipple can often alleviate many of the digestive complications of a Whipple operation, such as the “dumping syndrome,” because the pylorus is preserved.

Finally, it is revealed:

During the operation the doctors found three liver metastases. Had they operated nine months earlier, they might have caught it before it spread, although they would never know for sure.

Or, on the other hand, chances are very good that those liver metastases were there nine months before. Insulinomas tend not to grow so fast that they can progress from micrometastases to metastases visible to the surgeons in that short a period of time. So, while on the surface this revelation would seem to the average lay person to indicate that Jobs’ delay very well might have killed him, in reality, thanks to lead time bias, it probably means that his fate was sealed by the time he was diagnosed. Certainly, it means that claims such as the one made by Dr. Robert Wascher is not based in science and in fact is irresponsible:

In a recent interview with Newsmax Health Wascher explained how the simple act of consuming turmeric, a natural spice popular in Asian and Indian food, may be enough to prevent and cure the type of pancreatic cancer that afflicted former Apple CEO Steve Jobs, as well as other forms.

The same goes for Nicholas Gonzalez’s claims that he could have saved Jobs.

Round Two

What’s primarily interesting in the new information in this chapter are the details about Jobs’ being listed for liver transplant and how he ended up getting a liver in Tennessee. There has been a lot of speculation that somehow Jobs used his great wealth to “jump the queue” and get a liver more rapidly than he was entitled. As I’ve argued before, he did not, as you will soon see.

One thing I learned that I was right about is that a significant reason for Job’s emaciation in the wake of his surgery was what I had speculated: Complications from his Whipple procedure combined with his obsessive vegan diet. That is, that was the cause before his cancer recurrence. Isaacson described how, even after he had married and had children, he continued to have dubious eating habits. For example, he would spend weeks eating the same thing and then suddenly change his mind and stop eating it. He’d go on fasts. His wife tried to get him to diversify his protein sources and eat more fish, but largely failed. His wife hired a cook who tried to cater to Jobs’ strange eating habits. Indeed, Jobs lost 40 lbs. just during the spring of 2008. Another thing I learned was just how sick Jobs was at this point. His liver metastases had led to excessive secretion of glucagon; he was in a lot of pain and taking narcotics, his liver apparently full of metastases.

It turns out that Jobs was listed for liver transplant in both California and Tennessee, as approximately 3% of transplant recipients manage to list themselves in two different states. Isaacson describes:

There is no legal way for a patient, even one as wealthy as Jobs, to jump the queue, and he didn’t. Recipients are chosen based on their MELD score (Model for End-stage Liver Disease), which uses lab tests of hormone levels to determine how urgently a transplant is needed and on the length of time they have been waiting. Every donation is closely audited, data are available on public websites (optn.transplant.hrsa.gov), and you can monitor your status on the wait list at any time.

Regarding the multiple listing in California and Tennessee:

Such multiple listing is not discouraged by policy, even though critics say it favors the rich, but it is difficult. There were two major requirements: The potential recipient had to be able to get to the chosen hospital within eight hours, which Jobs could do thanks to his plane, and the doctors from that hospital had to evaluate the patient in person before adding him to the list.

Isaacson also reveals that it was a fairly close call. Jobs’ condition was deteriorating rapidly. If he hadn’t been listed in Tennessee, he very likely would have died before a liver became available to him in California. As it was, it wasn’t clear that he wouldn’t die before a liver became available to him in Tennessee. It might seem a bit ghoulish, but it’s the sort of thinking that everyone who’s ever undergone a liver transplant has a hard time avoiding. Isaacson reports that by March 2009 Jobs’ condition was poor and getting worse, but that there was hope among his friends that, because St. Patrick’s Day was coming up and because Memphis was a regional site for March Madness, there was a high likelihood of a spike in automobile crashes due to all the revelry and drinking associated with those events. We even learn that the donor was a young man in his mid-twenties who was killed in a car crash on March 21. It also turns out that Jobs had complications after his surgery. From what I can gather from Isaacson’s account (it wasn’t entirely clear to me) Jobs refused a nasogastric tube when he needed it and as a result aspirated gastric contents when he was sedated, developing a severe postoperative aspiration pneumonia from which at that point “they thought he might die.” Worse, although the transplant was a success, his old liver was riddled with metastases throughout, and surgeons noted “spots on his peritoneum.” Whether these “spots” were metastatic tumor deposits, Isaacson does not say, but it’s a good bet that they probably were.

Assuming Isaacson’s report is accurate and if those “spots” on the peritoneum were indeed metastatic insulinoma, this new information leads me to question more strongly than I did in the past (actually, I didn’t question the decision much at all) whether a liver transplant was a reasonable course of action in Jobs’ case, given that Jobs’ tumor burden in his liver seems to have been much higher than previously reported. If the spots were not cancer, then the transplant, although not contraindicated, was still high risk. In retrospect, it is not surprising that Jobs’ tumor recurred fairly quickly, less than two years after his transplant. Even Isaacson notes that by characterizing Jobs’ transplant as “a success, but not reassuring.” That’s because extrahepatic disease (disease outside of the liver, which peritoneal implants qualify as) is usually an absolute or near-absolute contraindication for liver transplant for cancer, at least in the case of hepatocellular cancer, because the chance of recurrence is so high. I make the analogy to adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, the much more lethal pancreatic cancer that is far more common than the insulinoma that Steve Jobs had. Often, surgeons will perform laparoscopy before attempting a curative resection (the aforementioned Whipple operation). If nodules are noted on the peritoneum, they are biopsied, and if the frozen section comes back as adenocarcinoma, the attempt at curative resection is aborted. The same is true when undertaking a curative resection for liver metastases from colorectal cancer, which can result in long term survival 30-40% of the time, but not if there’s even a hint of a whiff of extrahepatic disease. Although evidence is sketchy for insulinomas, because they’re such rare tumors, it’s hard not to conclude that the same is likely true for them and that extrahepatic disease is a contraindication to liver transplant.

Round Three

This chapter was, as you might imagine, a depressing read. In actuality, there wasn’t much new there or even much in the way of medical details that add much to what we know about Jobs’ course, aside from one revelation that I’ll discuss. First, to begin, in late 2010 Jobs started to feel sick again. Isaacson describes it thusly:

The cancer always sent signals as it reappeared. Jobs had learned that. He would lose his appetite and begin to feel pains throughout his body. His doctors would do tests, detect nothing, and reassure him that he still seemed clear. But he knew better. The cancer had its signaling pathways, and a few months after he felt the signs the doctors would discover that it was indeed no longer in remission.

Another such downturn began in early November 2010. He was in pain, stopped eating, and had to be fed intravenously by a nurse who came to the house. The doctors found no sign of more tumors, and they assumed that this was just another of his perioic cycles of fighting infections and digestive maladies.

In early 2011, doctors detected the recurrence that was causing these symptoms. Ultimately, he developed liver, bone, and other metastases and was in a lot of pain before the end.

The other issue discussed in this final chapter that is of interest to SBM readers is that Jobs was one of the first twenty people in the world to have all the genes of his cancer and his normal DNA sequenced. At the time, it cost $100,000 to do. This sequencing was done by a collaboration consisting of teams at Stanford, Johns Hopkins, and the Broad Institute at MIT. Scientists and oncologists looked at this information and used it to choose various targeted therapies for Jobs throughout the remainder of his life. Whether these targeted therapies actually prolonged Jobs’ life longer than standard chemotherapy would have is unknown, particularly given that Jobs underwent standard chemotherapy as well. It is rather interesting to read the account, however, of how Jobs met with all his doctors and researchers from the three institutions working on the DNA from his cancer at the Four Seasons Hotel in Palo Alto to discuss the genetic signatures found in Jobs’ cancer and how best to target them. Isaacson reports:

By the end of the meeting, Jobs and his team had gone through all of the molecular data, assessed the rationales for each of the potential therapies, and come up with a list of tests to help them better prioritize these.

The results of this meeting were sequential regimens of targeted drug therapies designed to “stay one step ahead of the cancer.” Unfortunately, as is all too often the case, the cancer ultimately caught up and passed anything that even the most cutting edge oncologic medicine could do. It’s always been the problem with targeted therapy; cancers evolve resistance, as Jobs’ cancer ultimately did.

What can we learn?

Even now, nearly four weeks later, there remains considerable discussion of Jobs’ cancer and, in particular, his choices regarding delaying surgery. Just yesterday, a pediatrician named Michele Berman speculating How alternative medicine may have killed Jobs. The article basically consists of many of the same oncologically unsophisticated arguments that I complained about right after Jobs’ death, some of which are included in another blog post on Celebrity Diagnosis. Clearly, an education in lead time bias is required. Does any of this mean that it was a good idea (or even just not a bad idea) for Jobs to have delayed having surgery for nine months? Of course not. Again, surgery was his only hope for long term survival. However, as I’ve pointed out before, chances are that surgery right after his diagnosis probably wouldn’t have saved Jobs, but there was no way to be able to come to that conclusion except in retrospect, and even then the conclusion is uncertain.

Although it’s no doubt counterintuitive to most readers (and obviously to Dr. Berman as well), finding liver metastases at the time of Jobs’ first operation strongly suggests this conclusion because it indicates that those metastases were almost certainly present nine months before. Had he been operated on then, would most likely would have happened is that Jobs’ apparent survival would have been nine months longer but the end result would probably have been the same. None of this absolves the alternative medicine that Jobs tried or suggests that waiting to undergo surgery wasn’t harmful, only that in hindsight we can conclude that it probably didn’t make a difference. At the time of his diagnosis and during the nine months afterward during which he tried woo instead of medicine, it was entirely reasonable to be concerned that the delay was endangering his life, because it might have been. It was impossible to know until later—and, quite frankly, not even then—whether Jobs’ delaying surgery contributed to his death. Even though what I have learned suggests that this delay probably didn’t contribute to Jobs’ death, it might have. Even though I’m more sure than I was before, I can never be 100% sure. Trust me when I say yet again that I really, really wish I could join with the skeptics and doctors proclaiming that “alternative medicine killed Steve Jobs,” but I can’t, at least not based on the facts as I have been able to learn them.

More interesting to me is part of the book where Isaacson reports on what was, in essence, Jobs’ indictment of a flaw in the medical system that he perceived after his second recurrence:

He [Jobs] realized that he was facing the type of problem that he never permitted at Apple. His treatment was fragmented rather than integrated. Each of his myraid maladies was being treated by different specialists—oncologists, pain specialists, nutritionists, hepatologists, and hematologists—but they were not being coordinated in a cohesive approach, the way James Eason had done in Memphis. “One of the big issues in the health care industry is the lack of caseworkers or advocates that are the quarterback of each team,” Powell said.

Isaacson contrasts the fragmented approach to Jobs’ care at Stanford to what is described as a far more integrated approach at Methodist Hospital in Memphis, where Jobs underwent his transplant and where Dr. James Eason was portrayed as having “managed Steve and forced him to do things…that were good for him.” Although it is certainly possible that the difference could be accounted for more by the lack of a person at Stanford with a strong enough personality to tell Jobs what he needed to do and get him to do it, compared to Dr. Eason, who clearly had a personality as strong as Jobs’, the description of fragmented care rings true to me, as I’ve seen this problem myself at various times during my career. One wonders if there is a way to infuse healthcare with some Apple-like integration of care, to build it into the DNA of the system itself as it is built into Apple’s DNA, without having to rely on personalities as strong as Dr. Eason’s apparently was.

Steve Jobs’ eight year battle with his illness is remarkable not so much because he had a rare tumor or because he flirted with alternative medicine for several months before undergoing surgery. Rather, I see Jobs’ case as providing multiple lessons in the complexity of cancer, the difficulty of the decisions that go into cancer care, and how being wealthy or famous can distort those choices. I’ve said it before, but now is as good a time as any to say it again: In cancer, biology is still king. Perhaps one day, when we know how to decode and interpret genomic information of the sort provided when Jobs’ had his tumors sequenced and use that information to target cancers more accurately, we will be able to dethrone that king more than just part of the time and only in certain tumors.

ADDENDUM: Finally, someone seems to agree with me!

FacebookGoogle BuzzDigg<!--<!--LinkedInStumbleUponLiveJournalShare

Pox parties taken to the next (illegal) level

Normally, we don’t post on weekends on this particular blog, mainly because most of our readership visits during the week and we don’t have enough bloggers to cover the weekend reliably anyway. However, occasionally something happens that’s so bizarre, so worrisom that we can’t wait until Monday. I don’t even care if I’m late to the party after Tara, Mike the Mad Biologist, The Biology Files, Todd, and probably several others whom I’ve missed.

Regular readers of this blog and anyone who’s ever followed the anti-vaccine movement more than superficially have probably heard of pox parties. These are, yes, parties where parents who don’t want to vaccinate their children against chickenpox, hoping for “natural immunity,” expose their children who have never had chickenpox to children with active chickenpox in order to intentionally infect them with the disease. (Thanks, Mom and Dad, for a couple of weeks worth of misery and intense itching and a small chance of serious complications!) Although there might have been a weak rationale for such activities back before there was a vaccine for chickenpox, today pox parties are about as dumb a concept as I can think of and only make sense in the context of equally idiotic anti-vaccine pseudoscience, and apparently, as is the case with many idiotic things, has co-opted Facebook and other discussion forums as a means of getting like minded (if you can call what is behind this a “mind”) together for purposes of inflicting misery on their children. One such page even has a Quack Miranda-style warning:

It is explicitly expressed that, regardless of the beliefs of the group moderator or its members, the group is not responsible for the outcome of the connections made. This group is not intended to give medical advice, speak as a medical authority, or cause children to contract any illness. Parents who do so on this board, do so at their own risk and without the advise or recommendation of the leadership of this group.

Which is, of course, a lie so obvious that one wonders why the moderators even bothered.

Some proudly display pictures of pox on children’s limbs. Others are even so proud of their “efforts,” that they proudly post pictures of them on their blogs, with captions such as “The little people enjoying each other, playing, and getting exposed” and “Although it sounds awful, we certainly hope the exposing worked!” I can only shake my head and respond that “it” doesn’t just “sound” awful. It is awful. True, major complications are fairly uncommon but they can be quite serious, with all of this being done in the name of being “natural” and avoiding those evil vaccines. It turns out that some parents, apparently having difficulty finding children with active chickenpox in their area (thanks to the aforementioned evil vaccine, no doubt), are mailing the virus to each other:

Doctors and medical experts are concerned about a new trend taking place on Facebook. Parents are trading live viruses through the mail in order to infect their children.

The Facebook group is called “Find a Pox Party in Your Area.” According to the group’s page, it is geared toward “parents who want their children to obtain natural immunity for the chicken pox.”

On the page, parents post where they live and ask if anyone with a child who has the chicken pox would be willing to send saliva, infected lollipops or clothing through the mail.

Parents also use the page to set up play dates with children who currently have chicken pox.

Medical experts say the most troubling part of this is parents are taking pathogens from complete strangers and deliberately infecting their children.

One concern is that they are sending the virus through the mail.

Here’s video of the local Arizona news report:

Again, I can’t begin to describe how reckless this is. It’s also highly illegal—a federal offense. I know of what I speak, because I personally have had to ship viruses and DNA plasmids through the mail. The reason was when I changed jobs about four years ago and was in the process of moving my laboratory to a new institution. I had a lot of adenoviral constructs. Varicella virus falls under the same sorts of rules as adenovirus. There are very specific rules for shipping. Tara explains quite nicely some of the requirements, among which is that there are very specific labeling requirements for the package to indicate what pathogens are inside. In fact, I found out the hard way just how rigorous and complex the labeling requirements were when a couple of the packages were returned because, as much as we tried to follow the letter of the regulations, we had somehow missed something in the labeling and paperwork. At that point I even briefly flirted with the idea of loading the samples up in my car and taking them myself when I hit the road to my new location. I quickly abandoned that notion, realizing that that, too, would be illegal and, worse, potentially dangerous. What if I got in a car crash along the way? So instead, we checked, double checked, and triple checked our packaging and paperwork and sent it again. This time, it went through, as we hadn’t missed any of the requirements.

As Mike the Mad Biologist points out, this is no different from bioterrorism, other than in intent. For one thing, the parents doing this seem utterly oblivious to the potential danger to the postal workers or workers at FedEx, UPS, or other shipping company that they use to send these biohazards. One also wonders if the parents use anything approaching proper technique to insert their “gifts” into the packages so that they don’t get it on their fingers and thus contaminate the outside of the package. In any case, should the package be damaged or should the baggy fail, so much for containment, and anyone who comes into contact with the package is at risk. That’s why there are so many federal regulations about shipping biohazardous substances across state lines. Indeed, when it was pointed out that shipping biohazards like bodily fluids from an individual infected with varicella across state lines is a federal offense, this was the reaction:

A Facebook post reads, “I got a Pox Package in mail just moments ago. I have two lollipops and a wet rag and spit.” Another woman warns, “This is a federal offense to intentionally mail a contagion.”

Another woman answers, “Tuck it inside a zip lock baggy and then put the baggy in the envelope :) Don’t put anything identifying it as pox.”

The level of irresponsibility and lack of concern for fellow human beings is staggering. As Todd points out, it’s not just varicella that might be in there? How does anyone know that there aren’t other pathogens in there? They are utterly self-absorbed, selfish, and lack concern for anyone but themselves and their own family. Indeed, look at the interview with the first mother in the video; she openly discusses sending pox through the mail and doesn’t seem to think it’s a big deal, all the while rambling on about how it’s the parents’ “choice.” The second mother, when confronted by a reporter, out and out lies about what was on her Facebook page, denying that she ever sent pox through the mail. It’s a mindset that was perfectly described as a Me! Mine! Mommy mindset that boils down to, basically, the right to be selfish.

But it’s worse than that. Near the end of the report from the local CBS affiliate above, there is a post from a parent looking for measles, which is much more dangerous than chickenpox. Her reason? This:

Dad is threatening to take it to court and getting exposed is the only way not to get the vaccine without possibly losing custody.

If you want an example of how far the irrational fear of vaccines will drive some people, you have no further to look than this story. At the risk of being too “strident” or “nasty” or “uncivil,” I can say unequivocally that what they are doing is, in my opinion, child abuse and that I hope that the feds come down on them like a ton of bricks for violating federal law and endangering everyone who comes into contact with their little “pox packages.”

FacebookGoogle BuzzDigg<!--<!--LinkedInStumbleUponLiveJournalShare

Milk Thistle and Mushroom Poisoning

If you’ve been fortunate to live in the parts of the US that were soggier than usually as of late – or unfortunate enough to have had flooding from hurricanes and tropical storms – then you’ve be noticing a tremendous burst of mushrooms.

For mycologists – mushroom enthusiasts – there are two classic chestnuts: “There are old mushroom collectors and bold mushrooms collectors, but there are no old, bold mushroom collectors.”

Or, in a more concise Croatian proverb, “All mushrooms are edible, but some only once.”

As such, this is the time of year that emergency rooms and regional poison centers begin to see a burst in poisonings from mushroom ingestion, due primarily to amateur misidentification of the fruiting bodies.

Just this past week, Jason McClure at Medscape Oncology News (free reg req’d) wrote about the unusual bloom of mushrooms in the northeastern US and the concomitant bloom of mushroom poisonings this fall.

But “mushroom poisoning” is an imprecise diagnosis for the ER physician. The constellation of symptoms caused by toxic mushrooms is as diverse as the colors and shapes of these wonders of nature. From another Medscape article on emergency management of mushroom poisoning by Dr. Rania Habal from the Emergency Medicine department of NYU:

Mushrooms are best classified by the physiologic and clinical effects of their poisons. The traditional time-based classification of mushrooms into an early/low toxicity group and a delayed/high toxicity group may be inadequate. Additionally, many mushroom syndromes develop soon after ingestion. For example, most of the neurotoxic syndromes, the Coprinus syndrome (ie, concomitant ingestion of alcohol and coprine), the immunoallergic and immunohemolytic syndromes, and most of the GI intoxications occur within the first 6 hours after ingestion.

Ingestions most likely to require intensive medical care involve mushrooms that contain cytotoxic substances such as amatoxin, gyromitrin, and orellanine. Mushrooms that contain involutin may cause a life-threatening immune-mediated hemolysis with hemoglobinuria and renal failure. Inhalation of spores of Lycoperdon species may result in bronchoalveolitis and respiratory failure that requires mechanical ventilation.

Mushrooms that contain the GI irritants psilocybin, ibotenic acid, muscimol, and muscarine may cause critical illness in specific groups of people (eg, young persons, elderly persons). Hallucinogenic mushrooms may also result in major trauma and require care in an intensive care setting. Lastly, coprine-containing mushrooms cause severe illness only when combined with alcohol (ie, Coprinus syndrome).

Among the poisonous mushrooms, Amanita phalloides is perhaps the most deadly. If you’ve spent any time in a biochemical laboratory you will have learned of the primary toxin of the mushroom, α-amanitin. This potency of this toxin comes from its remarkably high affinity for RNA polymerase II, the primary RNA polymerase for making messages that are converted into proteins.

The challenge in treating α-amanitin poisoning is that it has a relatively long half-life in the body because it is conjugated with glucuronic acid in the liver and secreted in the bile. But then microbes that normally inhabit our gut cleave the glucuronide sugar molecule off the toxin, released the toxic α-amanitin.

Throughout the history of folk medicine in the Middle East and Europe, extracts of the seeds of milk thistle (Silybum marianum) were determined to have protective effects against liver toxins. I’m still not terribly pleased with understanding the history of how this came about but answering this question is one of my liberal arts pursuits. As an aside, I should make the disclosure that my laboratory and colleagues have been investigating the anticancer effects of compounds from milk thistle and still receive NIH funding to do so; however, I do not (yet) study how milk thistle compounds prevent liver toxicity.

Nevertheless, milk thistle products are quite popular in Europe and the US for the general prevention of liver toxicity from statins, acetaminophen, and alcohol. Several of my friends have joked that one could make create a successful market for an alcoholic product containing milk thistle extract.

But one of the primary roadblocks in using milk thistle extracts or pure compounds for any indication is that the compounds have rather poor bioavailability. The seven major flavonolignans and one flavonoid in the typical extracts are very avidly conjugated by glucuronidation. In studies by collabortors at the University of Colorado, we now know that it takes daily doses of approximately 10-13 grams of milk thistle extract to achieve plasma concentrations consistent with known anticancer effects in vitro. It can be done, but it means taking much more than the typical 180 mg capsules you can buy at your local health food store.

However, an intravenous preparation of milk thistle extract has been available in Europe for over 20 years: Legalon SIL. This GMP-manufactured product is common to emergency rooms in Germany, France, and Belgium for the treatment of mushroom poisoning. The preparation is comprised of silybin A and silybin B – known collectively as silibinin – as a hemisuccinate that both improves the solubility and bioavailability of the compounds.

Two cases in the US – one in 2007 and another just this past month – have seen emergency IND approval of this European product. In 2007, Legalon was used to save four of five family members who had ingested Amanita phalloides while on a New Year’s Day picnic outside of Santa Cruz, California. And just last month, a team led by Dr. Jacqueline Laurin at Georgetown Medical Center successfully treated two men for accidental ingestion of Amanita. Georgetown is now an approved referral center for this IV prep of Legalon and their efforts were greatly assisted by the Santa Cruz team who handled the 2007 cases.

Less satisfying to me is the mechanism by which silybin A and silybin B protect the liver from the effects of RNA polymerase II inhibition by α-amanitin. The literature to date seems to converge on the inhibition of toxin uptake into hepatocytes by silibinin. A German group led by Herbert de Groot in Essen, Germany, published a highly-cited 1996 paper proposing that inhibition of inflammatory mediator release from Kupffer cells (the macrophage of the liver) might partly account for the hepatoprotective effects of silibinin. More recent work continues to address the modulation of inflammation.

Regardless, we are now seeing legitimate use of a medicine from a herbal tradition being used in clinical situations where emergency IRB approval and IND status have been given to such a product. Certainly, these stories may be used by marketers to promote use of their oral milk thistle products. But, as I mentioned earlier, such effects required ingestion of large doses of capsules. Instead, I present this story to SBM readers to illustrate that amidst the wooful promotion of herbal therapies, a few gems exist and are most worthy of our scientific investigation.

FacebookGoogle BuzzDigg<!--<!--LinkedInStumbleUponLiveJournalShare

Please Don’t Define “Complementary and Alternative Health Practices”!

Since I have a master’s and doctoral degree in health education and since I’m a professor in a department of public health with an undergraduate curriculum that includes substantial attention to health education, I participate in the email discussion group of HEDIR, the Health Education Directory. On August 16th, I received a message to the discussion group from the American Association for Health Education inviting participants to complete an online survey from the Joint Committee on Health Education and Promotion Terminology with results to be analyzed at the Committee’s meeting in September 2011.

The survey items include various terms used by health educators, the currently approved terminology, and three choices followed by a type-in box:

  • This term should remain as defined
  • This term should remain in the report but modified in definition
  • This term is no longer commonly used in health education/health promotion literature

If modify, please provide the suggested wording and reference for that definition if you are citing it from a specific source.

For one of the terms, my preferred response would have be have been a fourth choice that was not offered: The term is commonly used in health education/health promotion and elsewhere, but it should not be used because its use only serves to distort our thought processes and promote quackery.

Here is the term along with the definition presented in the survey:

Complementary and Alternative Health Practices: These practices generally include natural substances, physical manipulations, and self-care modalities. These approaches often incorporate aspects of interventions derived from traditional practices. The approach in Western societies has been to select specific approaches from these systems and apply them to health maintenance, health enhancement, or disease management. Such approaches can be used to compliment[sic] conventional allopathic care (complementary therapy), or as an alternative to conventional approaches (alternative therapy). Many of these complementary and alternative approaches have not been validated through experiential research, but those that have, such as acupuncture for pain, are being integrated into conventional health practices (integrative medicine).

And here are my objections to the term and to the definition given:

“Complementary and alternative health practices” is marketing doublespeak that conceals how promoting (via advertising, publicity, direct selling, word-of-mouth, etc.) non-validated or invalidated practices is unethical. When a practice is science-based, it is simply part of good healthcare or health promotion. “Complementary and alternative” jargon is never necessary to describe validated practices in health promotion or health care delivery. Science-based uses of natural substances, physical manipulations, and self-care modalities are all part of regular medicine.

Science-based natural products medicine is called pharmacognosy. Labels like “complementary and alternative” are used to give the impression of legitimacy, not to pharmacognosy, but to superstitious and often ecologically destructive uses of natural products such as herbalism (particularly paraherbalism), gruesome extractions of bile from living bears, shark cartilage, and rhinoceros horns.

Physical manipulations with a rational basis such as many of those included in personal exercise programs and physical therapy do not require euphemistic labels such as “complementary” or “alternative.” However, the labels “complementary” or “alternative” are often applied to give the appearance of legitimacy to superstition-based or pseudoscience-based physical manipulation treatments such as those used in chiropractic. Many chiropractors falsely claim that the spine requires periodic maintenance “adjustments” of health compromising  “subluxations” that only chiropractors can supposedly detect. Such adjustments don’t complement anything else and they aren’t a viable alternative for health promotion or disease prevention.

Many of the manipulations promoted as “complementary” or “alternative” are actually non-physical; they are rooted in vitalism, which is defined as: “a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from physicochemical forces” or “a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone….” Different health cults have different names for the supposed vital principle. In anthroposophy, the names are the divine element in nature, astral body, formative force, or either body. In Ayurvedic medicine, it’s prana. In chiropractic, it’s innate intelligence. In Reichian psychotherapy, it’s orgone energy. In homeopathy, it’s vital energy. In naturopathy, it’s vis medicatrix naturae. In Traditional Chinese Medicine and acupuncture, it’s chi or qi or ki.

The vital principle was popularized in Star Wars as “the force.” But in the real universe, nothing like “the force” is reliably detectable and there are no Jedi-like masters who can manipulate anything akin to it for healing or any other purposes. In the movie Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, the vital principle was called mojo. The idea that some people have skills as mojo detectors or mojo manipulators is as absurd as the movie, but “there are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

Self-care modalities have been promoted as “complementary” and “alternative,” but what useful distinction is there to be made between supposed “complementary” or “alternative” self-care modalities and those that don’t qualify and are therefore implicitly non-complementary or non-alternative? If the distinction is to be based on validation for safety and efficacy, why introduce euphemistic language like “complementary” or “alternative”? Categories such as validated, non-validated, and invalidated should suffice to give consumers useful information for deciding what modalities of self-care are worth trying out.

It’s true that many tradition-based practices are promoted as “complementary” or “alternative.”  Scholars who attempt to advance “complementary and alternative medicine” often like to emphasize traditional systems of care and ignore other practices marketed as “complementary and alternative.” Since it is often considered rude to be judgmental about traditions associated with particular cultures, fallacious appeals to traditional wisdom are useful in public relations. But numerous practices, products, and services marketed to consumers as “complementary” or “alternative” are promoted as “innovative,” “advanced,” “cutting edge,” “modern,” “scientific,” and the like, not as tradition-based. Examples include such so-called complementary and alternative medicine approaches (sCAMs) as metabolic therapy, chelation therapy, oxygenation treatments, insulin potentiation therapy, clinical ecology, anti-aging medicine, attachment therapy, various other mental health therapies, antineoplastons, cellular therapy, and syncrometers & zappers.

Referring to the selection of specific approaches from traditional systems in Western societies as “complementary” or “alternative” implies an East-West dichotomy that is simply false. Tradition-based systems and supposed whole-system care are not uniquely Eastern. Is it only in Western societies that approaches from traditional systems get used separately from whole-system care?

Medical anthropologists, medical sociologists, educated laypersons, health educators, and even physicians often make the mistake of describing standard medical practices of today and recent decades as “conventional allopathic care.” Allopathy is a term coined by Samuel Hahnemann (formulator of homeopathic treatment principles) as a label for medical practices of his day that were based upon ancient Greek humoral theory of disease such as bleeding and purging and blistering to manipulate the four so-called body humors: blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile. As medicine became more science-based, it discarded treatment based upon the convention of manipulating body humors and progressed by developing healthcare consistent with progress in biological and physical sciences. Nevertheless, approaches to healthcare based upon humoral theory—what Hahnemann called allopathy—persist today in parts of India, Pakistan and elsewhere as Unani medicine, which, ironically, the World Health Organization recognizes as a type of “CAM.” Unani is an Arabic adjective meaning Greek.

Since modern medicine makes progress by relying on science, it is iconoclastic—the antithesis of conventional. By contrast, the real allopathy practiced today as Unani medicine is bound to its ancient conventions. Like much of what gets promoted as “complementary” and “alternative,” Unani medicine reflects conventional wisdom of healing traditions rather than the rigor of scientific testing and the iconoclasm of scientific discovery.

I have previously explained that calling an approach to healthcare “complementary” implies that it adds to the outcome when combined with some other treatment and that calling an approach to healthcare “alternative” implies that it can be successfully used in lieu of some other approach. However, this is misleading labeling. Simply calling an approach “complementary” doesn’t mean it actually complements anything else and calling an approach “alternative” doesn’t make it a viable alternative. The jargon “complementary and alternative” serves to distract attention away from questions of utility based upon scientific merit.

Professor Richard Dawkins has explained: “Either it is true that a medicine works or it isn’t. It cannot be false in the ordinary sense but true in some ‘alternative’ sense.”

Drs. John E. Dodes and Marvin Schissel put it this way: “Erythromycin is an alternative to penicillin, but a pogo stick is not an alternative to an automobile.”

Drs. Marcia Angell and Jerome Kassirer wrote: “There cannot be two kinds of medicine—conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work.”

Dr. George Lundberg explains it this way:

There is no “alternative medicine.” There is only medicine:

  • Medicine that has been tested and found to be safe and effective. Use it; pay for it.
  • And, medicine that has been tested and found to be unsafe or ineffective. Don’t use it; don’t pay for it.
  • And, medicine for which there is some plausible reason to believe that it might be safe and effective. Test it and then place it into one of the other two categories.

Although many people believe that acupuncture for pain is medicine that fits Dr. Lundberg’s first category,  the weight of evidence places it in the second category, especially considering the lack of a plausible rationale for acupuncture as a therapy. Few, if any, health practices that have been promoted as “complementary” and “alternative” also belong in Dr. Lundberg’s first category. More than ten years of research funding by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine has failed to contribute to medical progress.

The term integrative medicine is superfluous and should not be used by responsible health professionals. Palliative care and adjunctive care are meaningful and useful terms for efforts to provide rational modalities of humane care, comfort, and support addressing the diverse needs of patients. The term “integrative medicine” adds nothing to describe approaches strongly supported by scientific evidence, but serves as an income-generating mechanism for attracting patients to seemingly special modalities that typically lack support beyond cherry-picked evidence or tradition. The term “integrative medicine” is not needed to offer science-based psychological approaches for managing health problems, but it does help in marketing when you are offering modalities based on vitalism. “Integrative medicine” represents branding, not a meaningful medical specialty. It projects a misleading image of academic seriousness that serves only to obscure its hype and help secure funding for clinical research of dubious need.

Terms such as “alternative,” “complementary,” and “integrative” have become popular euphemisms for non-validated and invalidated approaches to health enhancement—especially approaches with farfetched rationales. The use of such euphemisms facilitates quackery: the promotion of health products, services, or practices of questionable safety, effectiveness, or validity for an intended purpose. Today quackery is a far less popular term than the euphemisms. In some circles, it is politically incorrect to refer to quackery. But if we cannot refer to quackery as quackery, we can expect it to persist as a neglected public health scandal. I suggest that there are better alternatives to using currently popular euphemisms of alt-speak.


William M. London is a professor in the Honors College and in the Department of Public Health in the College of Health and Human Services at California State University, Los Angeles. He co-authored the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth (in press) editions of the college textbook Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions. Since 2002, he has been associate editor of the free weekly e-newsletter Consumer Health Digest. Since 2005, he has been co-host of the Credential Watch web site. He tweets as @healthgadfly.

FacebookGoogle BuzzDigg<!--<!--LinkedInStumbleUponLiveJournalShare

Constipation Myths and Facts

When it comes to health issues, bowels are big business. Bowel movements are part of everyday life, and we notice immediately when our routine changes. Constipation, from the Latin word constipare (“to crowd together”) is something almost everyone has some experience with. In most cases, it’s an occasional annoyance that resolves quickly. For others, particularly the elderly, constipation can be a chronic condition, significantly affecting quality of life.  Depending on the question and the sample surveyed, prevalence seems to vary widely.  It’s estimate that there are 2.5 million physician visits per year in the USA, and the costs of management are estimated at about $7.5 billion annually. It’s not a trivial issue.

One of the biggest challenges in interpreting both individual patient situations, as well as the literature overall, is understanding what’s defined as “constipation”. One person’s regular routine may be another person’s constipation. From my dialogue with patients, personal definitions seem to vary. Some panic after a single missed bowel movement, while others may be unconcerned with daily (or even less frequent) movements. What’s the optimal frequency? It depends. Infants may be 3x/day. Older children may be once daily. Adults may be daily or less frequently.  The literature generally, though not consistently, defines constipation as a delay or difficulty in bowel movements ( usually less than 3 per week) lasting two weeks. Symptoms can include infrequent, painful bowel movements, straining, and lumpy or hard stools.  When these problems last for more than three months, it’s termed chronic constipation. When constipation is accompanied by other symptoms like bloating, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, it may be termed  irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

There are multiple causes of constipation. It may be a consequence of other illnesses (e.g., high/low thyroid, diabetes, cancer, and neurological diseases like multiple sclerosis). Drugs, both prescription and over-they-counter, can also cause constipation.  Primary or idiopathic constipation is a diagnosis of exclusion, after other causes have been ruled out.  If there are no signs of a more serious underlying condition, treatments can be considered.

Many have firmly-held opinions about their colon and their bowel movements: what’s normal, and what’s not. And there are equally strong opinions about the causes of, and solutions to, constipation. But despite the ubiquity of constipation and the firmly-held opinions on treatments, there’s a sizable chasm between practice and evidence.  This is an area with crappy (sorry) data, and it’s hard to sort out what are true treatment effects. But an absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, so we’re challenged to make the best decisions possible, despite a disappointing evidence base. Here are some common statements I’ve encountered, and an evidence check on their veracity.

The colon is the root of all illness

Colonic dysfunction as constipation has been described as a cause of disease since at least the 16th Century BC. It’s been a recurring medical motif as long as medicine has existed, starting with ideas of internal putrefaction, and later, once germ theory arrived, became a worry about autointoxication. This theory proposed that unnamed “toxins” were being absorbed from the bowel and causing systemic disease.  Now discredited in science-based medicine, these ideas continue to manifest today, largely in the realm of CAM with its warnings to “detox”, irrigate our colon, and indulge in other ritualistic “cleansing” practices. So today the colon continues to be blamed for all manners of illness, including eczema, cancer, high blood pressure, allergies, and more. There’s no evidence  to substantiate these claims.

I need to have a bowel movement at least every “X” to avoid toxins/allergies/chronic disease/certain death

This argument is an extension of beliefs about the necessity of bowel movements to avoid systemic disease. Interestingly, over hundreds of years, there’s always been the idea that constipation is a modern disease, one of urbanization and civilization: dietary changes, the busy pace of life and a lack of exercise.  So if you don’t feel constipated, you aren’t. Bowel habits can be evaluated on their own merits. As long as they’re not painful or hard, there is no ideal frequency. In the absence of constipation, the flushing of the colon, or the use of laxatives or other purgatives is at best unnecessary, and at worst, potentially harmful.

A lack of fibre can cause constipation, and fibre supplements are effective constipation treatments

The granddaddy of fibre cereals, All Bran, appeared on the market in the 1900s as a treatment for the diagnosis of the day,  autointoxication of the colon. Since then, fibre has held a special place in the armamentarium of health professionals and CAM advocates alike: It’s not only natural, but nature’s little broom, right?

Fibre, from cereal or other foods, serves multiple purposes in the bowel. It adds bulk to the stool and can increase the frequency of bowel movements. But there is a lack of correlation between dietary fibre intake, and the risk of constipation. And in patients given fibre supplements, the response in patients with chronic constipation is erratic. Fibre, particularly bran and other insoluble fibres causes gas formation, which can limit acceptance. Soluble fibres, like psyllium (Metamucil) are better tolerated.

Studies suggest that that low fibre diets may be a a contributing factor to constipation in a subset of patients, who may  respond to higher fibre diets. Consequently, Fibre supplements may be useful in some patients with mild or occasional constipation. But in more severe cases of chronic constipation, fibre can actually aggravate symptoms,and does not appear to be an effective therapy.

Drinking more fluids can help reduce the risk of constipation

The idea that consuming more water will result in softer, easier to pass stools hasn’t been substantiated when studied in patients with chronic constipation. Studies in the elderly have also failed to reveal an association between increased fluid intake and constipation. Constipated children, randomized to consume different amounts of fluid, didn’t experience any changes in stool frequency, consistency, or ease of defecation. Unless there’s evidence of dehydration, consuming extra fluid on its own is unlikely to make any difference in cases of constipation.

Exercise can help constipation

In most patients with constipation, this statement is true. There’s an established relationship between our activity level and our bowel habits, giving us the luxury of sleeping several hours without interruption. There seems to be a relationship between exercise levels and incidence of constipation, though across several studies, it’s not clearly a causal relationship. And in cases of vigorous exercise (e.g., running) there is clearly evidence of a significant increase in activity. While it’s not possible to do a truly randomized, double-blind trial, the evidence available supports the use of  physical exercise can be helpful for modest constipation, but it does not seem to be effective for severe cases.

Stool softeners are effective
Stool softeners (e.g., docusate sodium (Colace)) are among the most popular products prescribed for the prevention or treatment of constipation. They’re often a reflex prescription that accompanies narcotic prescriptions, because constipation is a frequent side effect of narcotic drug use, mainly due to effects on transit time through the colon. Stool softeners are essentially soap, and the theory is that they make the stool easier to pass. Despite their widespread use, there’s no good evidence that docusate sodium or docusate calcium are effective for the treatment of constipation. I find it quite fascinating that docusate sodium is one of the active ingredients in Corexit, last seen being dumped in large quantities into the Gulf of Mexico to disperse the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Presumably the evidence is better for that indication.

Natural or synthetic, the drugs don’t work

Before treating constipation, getting an understanding of symptoms, other medications, and other illnesses is important. In cases where reversible factors  have been ruled out, drug therapy may be warranted. Despite the lack of good evidence, dietary and lifestyle changes usually precede drug therapy. In cases that don’t respond or resolve on their own, medications are next. Broadly, categories of treatments include bulk-forming products, stool softeners, osmotic agents, and stimulant laxatives.  Products available are a mix of naturally-derived and synthetic products. Some of the most popular laxatives are naturally-derived. The strange smell of Senokot tablets gives a clue to its origin: They’re senna glycosides, a product of the senna plant. The naturally occuring glucosides it contains are colonic irritants, stimulating colon contraction. Metamucil is psyllium seed husks, which swell into a gelatinous mass in the stomach, carrying water and bulk to the colon. Most of the other fibre supplements are naturally-derived as well.

The other commonly used products are synthetically derived. Milk of magnesia, despite its natural sounding name, is a suspension of magnesium hydroxide.When consumed, most of the magnesium isn’t absorbed, and it pulls fluid with it (via osmotic pressure) when it’s shunted to the colon. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) works this way, as does lactulose, a non-digestible sugar. The cathartics taken before endoscopy are all osmotic agents, too.

Bisacodyl (Dulcolax) is another popular over-the-counter product. A stimulant laxative like senna, bisacodyl stimulates colon contraction.

Despite the number of products, and prevalence of constipation, the evidence base for drug treatments is weak. There’s little head-to-head evidence that has pitted on treatment against another. So we’re largely left to make inferences from poor studies on different populations. The best evidence (which is still pretty weak) exists for the osmotic agents like PEG. Some evidence exists for psyllium, but it’s underwhelming. There’s evidence for lactulose as a treatment, as well. An excellent systematic review from the Oregon Evidence-Based Practice Center summarizes the evidence base in greater detail.

Probiotics can be effective for constipation

Probiotics, covered in depth by Mark Crislip already, are live microorganisms administered with intent of a therapeutic effect. If you like yogurt that does double duty, you’ll probably see brands that include Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus, and, depending on your national regulator, there may be vague health claims about intestinal “wellness” on the label. The idea of probiotics for constipation is at least plausible, as probiotics have the potential to disrupt the colon’s bacteria ecosystem – if only to a very limited extent, as Mark noted in his post.  For constipation, their effectiveness hasn’t been demonstrated though. A systematic review published in 2010 examined the data supporting their use in adults and children.  Five high quality trials were identified and the results were unimpressive:

Data published to date suggest that adults with constipation might benefit from ingestion of B. lactis DN-173?010, L. casei Shirota, and E. coli Nissle 1917, which were shown to increase defecation frequency and improve stool consistency. However, in some cases, even if there was a significant difference in results, their clinical relevance is unclear.

Their conclusion:

Until more data are available, we believe the use of probiotics for the treatment of constipation condition should be considered investigational.

Overall, not encouraging. And little reason to recommend their use. That’s the opinion of some regulators, too. The European Food Safety Authority has largely rejected general health claims for probiotics.

Taking laxatives continuously is dangerous and leads to tolerance and then dependence

This is a common myth, but not substantiated by fact. [PDF] As a pharmacist I see a lot of chronic laxative use – some appropriate, and some clearly inappropriate. Something that was planted in my head in pharmacy school was the warning that chronic use would lead to dependence, and a near-certain risk of constipation if their use was suddenly stopped.  The warning is primarily with the stimulant laxatives, which have been believed to affect nerve conduction and muscle damage, largely based on anecdotal evidence. Microsope examination of colon tissue in chronic laxative users reveal some differences from normal subjects. But whether these changes are caused by stimulant laxatives, or are a product of an underlying disorder, is unclear. The best evidence we have suggests that risks of of most  laxatives, when used to treat constipation, at recommended doses, is probably small.  Risks seem restricted to patients with severe symptoms on high doses of stimulant laxatives.  Notably, because laxatives are generally not even absorbed, there is no risk of them directly causing nervous system effects. Consequently, there’s no risk of a actual addiction, through there’s no question that they can be misused. Misuse beyond the treatment of constipation can be problematic, potentially leading to electrolyte disturbances.

Children are little adults

False. Constipation is children is common, and it causes distress to parents, too. I’ve spoken with parents of infants only weeks old, already set on giving their child a suppository because the “regular” bowel movement is hours late. In infants, parents often ask me about iron-free formulas, thinking the iron may be causing constipation. However iron-fortified formulas haven’t been shown to be more constipating that iron-containing formulas. So switching to an iron-free formula may have no effect, and introduce the challenge of ensuring adequate iron intake.

The most common cause of constipation in children is functional constipation – constipation without an intrinsic cause, usually caused by children deliberately delaying or avoiding bowel movements, usually due to a painful past movement. Delaying causes further constipation, and further pain with bowel movements. Functional constipation is the cause of almost all constipation in children. Constipation that’s accompanied by abdominal pain, nausea, anorexia, or vomiting needs a physician examination to rule out other causes.

Despite its frequency, constipation in children rarely lasts and generally doesn’t require medication. Which is good, because there’s little evidence to demonstrate that laxatives are effective in children. A systematic review published earlier this year summarized the evidence base. Like treatment for adults, the data are limited. Because of the lack of evidence, dietary changes, while also not well supported by evidence, should precede any drug therapy. Acute treatments should be followed with longer term strategies to prevent further episodes. While the effectiveness of fibre for the treatment of constipation in children hasn’t been demonstrated, encouraging fibre-rich fruits or vegetables as a first step may plausibly help, and have numerous other health benefits as well.

Conclusion

Constipation is is common condition, yet there’s little high quality evidence to guide our actions. Myths about constipation further complicate treatment strategies. In the absence of high quality evidence, it would seem most conservative to carefully evaluate each situation for potentially causal factors, and introduce the treatments backed by the best evidence only after core dietary and lifestyle factors have been implemented.

FacebookGoogle BuzzDigg<!--<!--LinkedInStumbleUponLiveJournalShare

Alpha Brain – What’s Wrong with the Supplement Industry

There is an endless stream of supplement products on the market that are of questionable value. They tend to follow a similar pattern: put an essentially random assortment of vitamins, minerals, perhaps herbs and nutritional elements into a pill and then make whatever pseudo-health claims you want. Usually the claim is implied in the name of the product itself – sleepwell, or brainboost. The popular product Airborne fits this mold. It is essentially a multivitamin with the unfounded claim that it will prevent infection by boosting the immune system.

In the US, regulations (under DSHEA) specifically allow “structure/function” claims without any requirement for evidence to back up the claims. In other words, as long as you don’t mention a disease by name, you can make pretty much whatever claim you want. This was supposed to be good for the consumer, when in fact it is springtime for industry at the expense of the consumer. If your claims are outrageous enough the FTC can still go after you, but they are playing a game of whack-a-mole and losing.

Another pattern that is common is for a supplement product to contain specific components that are claimed to have specific benefits. Often these claims are based upon evidence – just the wrong kind of evidence. Basic science evidence is used inappropriately to support clinical claims. This strategy is more insidious, as it gives the public the sense that the product is science-based when it isn’t.

Recently a product came to my attention which fits this mold perfectly – Alpha Brain. This is a supplement that claims to “enhance” mental function, sleep, creativity, and athletic performance. Their website includes a section called “The science behind alpha-brain.” I always find it amusing to following the links for promised evidence on such sites. What they never seem to contain is links or references to primary sources that actually demonstrate the claims they are making.

The site reviews all of the ingredients in Alpha-Brain explaining the science behind the claims – let’s look in detail at just one example, GPC choline, which is an essential nutrient and a precursor for the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. The site claims:

There is scientific evidence that proves that increased levels of acetylcholine in the body can dramatically increase memory and cognitive ability of men and women of all ages[1]

The reference given is not to a peer-reviewed study, but to another promotional site that simply makes more claims about the benefits of choline. The concept here is not implausible, but also cannot be assumed, and is very common in the supplement industry. The idea is that a precursor of an important molecule in the body will increase the availability and therefore function of that molecule. That could be true, if availability of the precursor is the rate-limiting-step in the production and function of the molecule. Specifically in this case, is the nutritional availability of choline limiting the production and function of acetylcholine?

Choline is an essential nutrient, so (as is true with all nutrients) in someone who is undernourished or with specific deficits in their diet, supplementing will help. But in someone with an adequate diet, there is no reason to assume that more will be better. Supplements treat deficiencies – but there is no reason to think that taking additional nutrients beyond the minimum necessary will have functional benefits.

They then report:

A study performed by Sangiorgi Barbagallo at the University of Palermo studied 2044 candidates who suffered from recent stroke or transient ischemic attack. The study concluded that administration of GPC choline confirmed its therapeutic role in improving cognitive ability in this group of study subjects.

They don’t give the reference, but I tracked in down. This is an excellent example of how a company can cite studies to make is seem as if their claims are evidence-based when they are not. The question is – how relevant is this study to Alpha-Brain? There are two major problems: The first is that the study (which was not blinded, but even if we take its results at face value) used 1000mg IM (intramuscular) for 28 days, followed by 400mg orally daily. Alpha-Brain contains 100mg of GPC choline. IM administration likely has a completely different bioavailability than an oral dose. And of course the dosing for 28 days was 10 times that in the supplement.

A bigger problem, however, is the study population – those recovering from a stroke or TIA. When the body is under physiological stress demand for nutrients are likely to become a limiting factor in the rate of recovery, even when those same nutrients are not a limiting factor in a healthy individual. You therefore cannot extrapolate from a disease population to a healthy population – just because a nutrient helps recovery does not mean it will enhance normal function.

The same is true for Alzheimer’s disease. There is evidence that choline supplements may improve the symptoms of dementia. But this does not mean they will enhance mental function in a healthy individual.

Conclusion

I am presenting just one illustrative example of the types of deceptive marketing practice by the supplement industry, specifically with their use of scientific evidence. They use the evidence as a marketing tool, not as a way to determine the net clinical effects of a product. Several types of deceptive use of evidence are common: using basic science studies to support clinical claims, using studies in ill subjects to make claims about enhancing normal function, referencing secondary sources or sources that do not support the claims being made, and making inappropriate comparisons to different doses and routes of administration.

The goal is to create the impression that the supplement being marketed has health benefits that are backed by science – but the devil is always in the details. What they never seem to provide is rigorous studies of their actual product published in the peer-reviewed literature showing the specific benefits they are claiming when used as directed.

FacebookGoogle BuzzDigg<!--<!--LinkedInStumbleUponLiveJournalShare

KA at U Minnesota and Michigan State

I’ll be giving a talk, “Homeopathy and Skepticism,” to skeptical students this Thursday, Oct 27, at the University of Minnesota (7:00 PM at MCB 3-120) and this Friday, Oct. 28, at Michigan State University (7:00 PM at Holmes Hall 106). Here is the abstract:

Homeopathy is an extraordinary popular delusion that has persisted for more than 200 years. It is now a mainstay of “complementary and alternative medicine” in spite of longstanding, definitive scientific refutations. It is of particular interest to skeptics because its history evokes fundamental concepts such as sympathetic magic, Ockham’s razor, and Hume’s Maxim, and major historical figures such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., and Hume himself.

Show up in Halloween costume if you like; I may do that myself.

KA

FacebookGoogle BuzzDigg<!--<!--LinkedInStumbleUponLiveJournalShare

Steven Fowkes (Part 1 of 2): How to Cure Alzheimer’s and Herpes

A correspondent asked me to review a video presentation by Steven Fowkes, “Nutrients for Better Mental Performance,” one segment of a 9-part series on preventing and curing Alzheimer’s that was mentioned recently by an SBM commenter. Fowkes is an organic chemist without a PhD; he says this means:

I am not institutionalized [This begs for a joke, but I will refrain.] and see the world differently. Everything I know I learned outside the system.

He is associated with CERI, the Cognitive Enhancement Research Institute and has written extensively on nutrition and health. I’ll comment on his claims for Alzheimer’s and herpes first, and then return to the “Nutrients for Better Mental Performance” video next week.

Alzheimer’s

He says he can prevent Alzheimer’s disease and cure it in the early stages, although later damage will not be reversible. And yet he doesn’t actually specify the details of how he accomplishes that miracle: apparently it’s complicated (I would imagine so) and varies with the individual. Science doesn’t know what causes Alzheimer’s, but Fowkes does. The current thinking of scientists is that it is due to genetic factors interacting with environmental factors, and it might be a natural consequence of the aging process that would eventually affect anyone who lives long enough. Fowkes says it involves a complicated domino cascade of effects, but the cause boils down to loss of glutathione cycling and failure of sulfhydryl enzymes, which  interferes with the detoxification of mercury in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients.

He says the brain is special and is more sensitive to thyroid imbalance, inflammation, and other factors. Aerobic metabolism is particularly important in the brain, since it is far more efficient than anaerobic metabolism and is needed to support multicellular life, the central nervous system, and consciousness. He goes into great detail about the energy production mechanisms in metabolic processes, discussing the Krebs cycle, phosphorylation, microtubules, antioxidant defenses, NADH, NADPH, recycling of glutathione, how sulfhydryl enzymes are poisoned by mercury, etc.

He assumes that Alzheimer’s patients have increased mercury levels in their brains. There are a couple of older studies that appeared to show that they do, but these are contradicted by studies done since showing that they don’t. If there is not extra mercury in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients, all the rest of his reasoning fails. He has built a huge house of cards on a tiny wobbly foundation. He assumes that removing the mercury or correcting an imbalance between mercury and glutathione ought to improve Alzheimer’s, but he has no clinical data.

The fact that Alzheimer’s is reversible should be front page news. He says the news has been suppressed because:

  • The breakthrough came through the back door (research done by a few dentists).
  • Mainstream dentists rejected the information because it showed that amalgams and root canal procedures were not safe.
  • The medical establishment rejected it because it undermines prescription options and points to supplements everyone can buy.

He tries to relate complicated biochemistry diagrams to clinical topics.  Cardiovascular conditions impact cognitive function. Hypercoagulability is caused by inflammation. There are blood gas impairments in lung disease. pH disturbances alter O2 binding in the blood. Hiccups and tachycardia are examples of CO2 deficiency and are more common in people with senility and low energy metabolism.

Plaque can cause cognitive dysfunction by restricting blood flow.  Plaque is sometimes caused by impaired collagen maturation which he says can be readily reversed by Mathias Rath’s vitamin C, lysine, and proline treatment and by more complex mixtures.  (For readers who don’t recognize his name, Rath is an infamous quack who is notorious for causing thousands of deaths in South Africa by substituting vitamins for effective AIDS treatment). Soft tissue calcification in plaque can be reversed with magnesium, high dose vitamin D, strontium, and potassium, with or without adjunctive EDTA chelation therapy (Note: There is no evidence for this, and there is evidence against chelation therapy). Vasoconstriction occurs with deficiency of Mg or vitamin D and impaired NO. NO accounts for cognitive improvement with gingko, vinpocetine, arginine. (Note: there is no evidence of cognitive improvement to account for.)

Ketosis trains the brain to use body fat as a source of energy. Toxins are released when body fat is mobilized. Exercising in and out of ketosis makes the process more efficient.

Mercury is toxic to microtubules. He says amalgam fillings and root canal procedures must be avoided.

The genetic risk factors are due to the fact that apoE modulates mercury toxicity. Mercury toxicity causes Alzheimer’s but, paradoxically, fish consumption is protective. The anti-inflammatory effects of fish oil apparently outweigh the toxic effects of mercury.

He displays a tree of steroid effects, some good and some bad. The menstrual cycle postpones a wide range of anti-aging effects. Other factors are involved: allergies, the leaky gut syndrome, oxidative stress from heavy metals, nutritional deficiencies, chemical exposures, and alcoholism. The great variety of factors means treatment for Alzheimer’s must be individualized. To individualize treatment, patients can be tested in various ways before and after an intervention or a supplement to see what works best for them.

Cognitive testing can be done by an extensive, expensive battery of neuropsychological tests that assess cognitive, motor, balance, proprioception, and sensory functions. But these functions can be tested just as well at home by monitoring performance on:

  • Computer games like Tetris.
  • Concentration game with stopwatch.
  • Finger to nose and other tests.
  • Bridge, chess, juggling, handwriting, crossword puzzles.

Home self-testing allows constant feedback to improve compliance. Does he offer any evidence from controlled studies or peer-reviewed journals that Alzheimer’s patients have actually improved with this plan? Not a scrap.

How to Cure Herpes

In his books, one of which is available free on the CERI website, he also offers a “biologically sustainable solution to chronic viral diseases” via two options:

  • Taking BHT.
  • Using a natural combination of foods, nutrients, hormones, and lifestyle changes.

These cause a metabolic shift that some people will not perceive, but others will notice better sleep, improvement in skin quality, reduced asthma symptoms, decreased sensitivity to cold weather, and fewer migraine headaches. He says that his program has been successfully applied to recurring herpes, shingles, herpes encephalitis, “raging intestinal CMB,” and hepatitis C.

So he says. But there are no clinical studies. Of course, he knows lots of doctors who have prescribed BHT and gotten fantastic results, but they won’t let him release their names because they don’t want to get into trouble for using a nonstandard treatment. (I would think they’d want to publish case reports and case series and become famous!) His extensive writings on herpes amount to (1) complicated speculations based on biochemistry, (2) testimonials, and (3) bashing the medical establishment.

Conclusion

Fowkes is good at explaining complicated relationships in biochemistry, but he does not seem to understand medicine and the errors that occur when you jump from speculation to therapy without clinical trials. I am not impressed. I would love to be proven wrong, because we need effective treatments for these diseases; but I must provisionally conclude that he has not found the cure for Alzheimer’s or herpes. I will cover his ideas about nutrients for better mental performance next week.

 

 

FacebookGoogle BuzzDigg<!--<!--LinkedInStumbleUponLiveJournalShare

More Breast Cancer Awareness Month pseudoscience from (who else?) Joe Mercola

I have mixed emotions regarding Breast Cancer Awareness Month. On the one hand, I look forward to it because it provides us with a pretext to get out science-based messages about breast cancer and to highlight a lot of the cool science that we do at our cancer center. On the other hand, the quacks see an opportunity in Breast Cancer Awareness Month to spread their message too. That message, not surprisingly, generally involves attacking science-based modalities for the detection and treatment of breast cancer and promoting their “alternative” methods. For example, last year, Christiane Northrup promoted thermography as somehow being better than mammography for the early detection of breast cancer. It’s not. Yet there she is this year again, still promoting the same nonsense. In years past, I’ve seen people like Dennis Byrne promoting a link between abortion and breast cancer, a link that is not supported by science. I’ve seen the likes of Mike Adams claiming that Breast Cancer Awareness Month is nothing more than a conspiracy by the male-dominated “cancer industry” to keep women down and misinformation about “myths” of breast cancer while likening the “cancer industry” to Nazi extermination camp commanders and chemotherapy to Zyklon-B. I kid you not about that last part. Indeed, during October, I frequently get to look forward to images like this one (click for a larger image):

Or this one:

You get the idea.

This year, things have struck me as being unusually quiet on the Breast Cancer Awareness Month-related quackery front. That’s not to say that there hasn’t been anything. It’s just that it seems to have started later in the month (usually the Adamses of the world are chomping at the bit and start their barrage right around October 1) and been somewhat lacking in the sheer—shall we say?—looniness of past years. Sure, it’s possible that I haven’t been looking in the “right” (if you can call them that) places. There is still a week left in the month; I’ll try harder. In the meantime, leave it to Dr. Joe Mercola to provide me with a couple of examples.

For example, just yesterday Mercola dropped this blob of misinformation entitled The Cancer Time Bomb Sitting in Your Refrigerator – Will You Stop Consuming It? Its message can be boiled down to: “Recombinant bovine growth factor in milk causes breast cancer.” The article begins:

There is one food you may be surprised to learn, that is directly linked to breast cancer—and that is pasteurized dairy in the form of milk or milk products.

The risk lies in consuming milk from cows treated with a synthetic, genetically engineered growth hormone called rBGH, and unfortunately, this applies to about one third of the dairy cows in America.

When you consume dairy products from these cows, every product made from their milk is contaminated with this dangerous hormone—be it cheese, ice cream, yogurt, butter—or just plain milk.

Cows are injected with rBGH to boost their milk production.

To back up this contention, he included an interview with Dr. Shiv Chopra, a man who trained as a veterinarian in Punjab and then later emigrated to Canada, where he received a PhD in Microbiology from McGill University. Outside the quack world, he is known for a whistleblowing incident and claimed that he had been pressured to approve animal drugs of questionable safety. Since then, he appears to have drifted further and further into dubious medicine, including anti-vaccine views (Chopra has even said that “no flu vaccine has ever worked”) and crankery about genetically modified foods (GMOs). His bête noire appears to be—you guessed it—bovine growth hormone (rBGH), also called recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST). Here is the interview:

BGH is a peptide hormone that is produced using recombinant DNA techniques. It is used by farmers to increase milk yield by cows, which it can do by as much as 10%, and it has been fairly controversial. According to Wikipedia, the U.S. is the only developed country that allows human consumption of milk from cows injected with rBGH. I’m not going to comment whether in general it is a good or a bad idea to be using rBGH to increase milk production or what other health effects on those who consume the milk might be. It’s generally agreed that rBGH is associated with a number of health problems in cows, including infertility, lameness, hoof disorders, and shortened lifespan, according to a review and meta-analysis in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, although most of the relative risks are relatively small. It’s also known that rBGH is associated with an increase in clinical mastitis, but it is not clear whether this is a direct effect of the hormone or an indirect effect of increased milk production due to the hormone.

So what about breast cancer? Hold on for just a little bit longer. I’m getting to it. According to Mercola and Chopra:

IGF-1 is a potent hormone that acts on your pituitary gland to induce powerful metabolic and endocrine effects, including cell growth and replication. Elevated IGF-1 levels are associated with breast and other cancers. When cows are injected with rBGH, their levels of IGF-1 increase up to 20-fold, and this IGF-1 is excreted in the milk.

According to some confidential, unpublished industry studies, IGF-1 levels consistently elevate by 25 to 70 percent in rBGH milk. In reality, it is probably worse than that, since standard calculation techniques used by the dairy industry underestimate IGF-1 levels by a factor of four.

In one study, a six-fold increase in IGF-1 levels in milk were found as early as seven days following rBGH treatment.

IGF-1 stands for “insulin-like growth factor-1,” which is a peptide hormone that’s been much studied in relation to cancer. Indeed, if you search PubMed for “IGF-1 and breast cancer,” the search returns 1,375 references, in part because IGF-1 plays an important role in mammary development but, more importantly, because IGF-1 and the IGF system are promising targets for therapy in breast cancer; i.e., blocking IGF-1 signaling could well be an effective treatment. So how does this translate to the basic message of this article, which is a claim that milk from rBGH-treated cows causes breast cancer? This is how Mercola and Chopra make the link:

Only one of every 10 breast cancer cases is attributed to genetics—the other nine are triggered by environmental factors, some of which are dietary. The fact that increased IGF-1 levels in hormone-treated milk increase your risk for breast, colon, and prostate cancers as has been documented in about 50 scientific publications over the past three decades. Among them is the 1998 Harvard Nurses Health study, which showed that premenopausal women with elevated IGF-1 levels had up to a seven-fold increase in breast cancer. And women younger than age 35 who have elevated IGF-1 have more aggressive breast cancer.

The very first sentence of the paragraph above is full of so much wrong that it’s hard not to chuckle. The wrong is the assumption that because only one in ten breast cancer cases can be attributed to clearly defined genetic causes then that must mean that all of the rest must be triggered by environment. In a word: No. The genetics of breast cancer are complex and multifactorial, and many breast cancers are due to spontaneous mutations in key genes. With the exception of certain well-known genetic mutations, such as in BRCA1 or BRCA2, the division between “genetic” causes of breast cancer and other causes is not so clear cut. As for associations between elevated IGF-1 levels and cancer, they are just that: Associations. Correlations. The observation that elevated levels of IGF-1 appear to be correlated with some cancers does not mean that consuming IGF-1 causes cancer. After all, many cancer cells themselves make IGF-1. Indeed, a review from several years back concluded that “circulating concentrations of IGF-I and IGFBP-3 are associated with an increased risk of common cancers, but associations are modest and vary between sites.”

Here’s another hole in Chopra and Mercola’s “theory,” milk consumption from cows not treated with rBGH has been shown to increase IGF-1 levels, as a meta-analysis from two years ago found. Most of the studies evaluated in the meta-analysis were not from the U.S.; in fact one of them included children from Mongolia and the U.S. The authors point out that milk naturally contains IGF-1. Also remember that IGF-1 is a protein. In general, proteins are not well-absorbed; in general they are broken down to their constituent amino acids or to di- or tri-peptides, which is how they are absorbed by the intestinal tract. The authors also point out:

In addition to a direct effect of milk-borne IGF-I, the observed association may reflect increasing protein or total energy intake. Studies showed that protein-energy malnutrition decreased IGF-I levels. The IGF-I level was increased in response to improvements of both protein and energy intake during re-feeding (Crace et al. 1991; Zamboni et al. 1996). Indeed, of these cross-sectional studies we identified, eight studies reported that protein, especially animal protein intake, was positively correlated with circulating IGF-I levels (Giovannucci et al. 2003; Holmes et al. 2002; Hoppe et al. 2004a; Colangelo et al. 2005; Larsson et al. 2005; Rogers et al. 2006; McGreevy et al. 2007; Norat et al. 2007). Of note, one study indicated that milk consumption was no longer a significant predictor when protein was adjusted (Giovannucci et al. 2003). Thus, the possibility of protein intake as an intermediate of milk consumption and IGF-I level cannot be excluded. It is likely that milk, as an important resource of protein for humans, provides some specific essential amino acids that are the most important nutrient determinants of IGF-I (Takenaka et al. 2000). In addition to protein, calcium— another important nutrient in milk—was considered a component stimulating the IGF-I level (Rosen 2003). In five cross-sectional studies reporting that milk consumption was positively associated with IGF-I, calcium also showed a positive correlation with the IGF-I level (Ma et al. 2001; Holmes et al. 2002; Colangelo et al. 2005; Budek et al. 2007; Norat et al. 2007). Therefore, milk-borne IGF-I, protein and calcium in milk may be responsible for the increase of circulating IGF-I level in milk consumers.

In other words, whatever health problems might or might not be attributable to the consumption of milk from cows treated with rBGH, breast cancer is not one of them. There’s no evidence that the IGF-1 in milk is a major source of elevated IGF-1 in humans; indeed, it’s probably not even absorbed in sufficient amounts to make a difference. Any elevation of IGF-1 due to milk that has been reported appears to be due to the milk itself, or milk consumption is a marker for more protein consumption, which is the real cause of elevated IGF-1 levels in the serum. Finally, it’s not even clear whether IGF-1 is a biomarker that correlates with other risk factors associated with breast cancer or whether it is in any way causative. to put it bluntly, the quacks, as usual, have extrapolated far beyond what available data show. Indeed, in animal models, elevated rBGH doesn’t even correlate with mammary carcinogenesis.

Oh, no! Aluminum is deadly!

So, let’s see. If we are to believe Mercola, milk, particularly milk from cows who received the dreaded rBGH, is deadly and will give you breast cancer; that is, of course, unless it’s raw milk, which if you believe Mercola and his ilk is a nutritional panacea. But it turns out that milk isn’t the only deadly threat that will cause breast cancer on Planet Quack. Mercola asks: Are Aluminum-Containing Antiperspirants Contributing To Breast Cancer In Women? The answer: Almost certainly not, although Mercola tries his damnedest to dance around the evidence to demonstrate that it is a horrific risk factor for breast cancer. Specifically, it’s supposed to be the aluminum:

Research, including one study published this year in the Journal of Applied Toxicology, has shown that the aluminum is not only absorbed by your body, but is deposited in your breast tissue and even can be found in nipple aspirate fluid a fluid present in the breast duct tree that mirrors the microenvironment in your breast. Researchers determined that the mean level of aluminum in nipple aspirate fluid was significantly higher in breast cancer-affected women compared to healthy women, which may suggest a role for raised levels of aluminum as a biomarker for identification of women at higher risk of developing breast cancer.

The report discussed is a small pilot study of 35 patients, 16 with breast cancer and 19 with no cancer. While the results are somewhat provocative, it is important to remember that (1) the study is small and (2) the significance of the results are unknown. More importantly, there were a lot of confounding factors not controlled for. For example, presumably both women with breast cancer and those without in the study there was no serious attempt to control for confounding factors or to quantify the use of aluminum antiperspirants. Indeed, there are significant differences between the two groups. For example, the median age of the cancer group was 56, while it was 40 for the no cancer group. Perhaps something as simple as age could account for the difference. Does something happen after menopause leading to increased accumulation of aluminum from the natural exposure that we all have? Who knows? No analysis was done. Another possibility is that breast cancer might somehow accumulate aluminum more than normal tissue.

In other words, the study tells us absolutely nothing about whether or not aluminum-containing antiperspirants contribute to breast cancer risk.

Mercola’s next red herring is this:

In a 2007 study published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, researchers tested breast samples from 17 breast-cancer patients who had undergone mastectomies. The women who used antiperspirants had deposits of aluminum in their outer breast tissue. Concentrations of aluminum were higher in the tissue closest to the underarm than in the central breast.

Why is this a glaring red flag?

Aluminum is not normally found in the human body, so this study was a pretty clear sign that the metal was being absorbed from antiperspirant sprays and roll-ons. Please note that aluminum is typically only found in antiperspirants. If you are using a deodorant-only product it is unlikely to contain aluminum but might contain other chemicals that could be a concern.

Aluminum is not normally found in the human body? Did Mercola even read the previous article he cited? That article in and of itself demonstrated that aluminum is found in measurable quantities in normal human breast tissue nipple aspirates. Its finding was simply that it was found at higher levels in breasts with cancer. Come to think of it, did he even bother to read the study he just cited? It showed detectable levels of aluminum in normal breast tissue, too!

In any case, the claim that aluminum antiperspirants cause breast cancer is a classic case of confusing correlation with causation. The argument you will frequently see made is that most breast cancers occur in the upper outer quadrant of the breast. Because that quadrant of the breast is closest to the underarm, which is where antiperspirants are used, it must be the antiperspirants! And global warming is most definitely due to the decreasing number of pirates over the last three centuries. In fact, about half of all breast cancers develop in the upper outer quadrant of the breast, but it’s not because of antiperspirant use; it’s just because of a very simple thing. There is more breast tissue there than in other quadrants of the breast, and the number of breast cancers diagnosed there is proportional to the amount of breast tissue. Moreover, there is good evidence that there is no correlation between the use of antiperspirants and breast cancer. At the most, we can say that there might be such a link, but a fair assessment of the evidence suggests that such a link is unlikely.

And all the rest

Now that I’ve dealt with the two relatively serious claims regarding breast cancer and various environmental factors, let’s conclude by moving on to the fun stuff. also in the second article are some real howlers. For example:

In his 1975 article, Chinese Lessons For Modern Chiropractors, Dr. George Goodheart – known as “the father of Applied Kinesiology” — explained what he calls the “Antenna Effect.” Essentially, he discovered that by taping a small metal ball over an acupuncture point, you could achieve longer-term stimulation to that point in question. This discovery led to what are now known as AcuAids — small magnetic patches that are used by thousands of doctors across the world.

However, just like a small metal ball, any metal constantly applied to any given energy channel or point on your body can have the same stimulating effect. Over time, the continued stimulation can cause a subsequent decrease in function of important neuro-lymphatic reflex points located below your breasts.

In addition, the metal wire may act as an antenna attracting electromagnetic fields, which may also increase your risk of breast cancer. Fortunately, you can easily remove the piece of metal wire and replace it with a plastic rod of comparable size, which will provide the support but not simulate the antenna effect.

Yes, that’s right. Don’t wear those underwire bras, ladies. They concentrate electromagnetic radiation around the breasts. This is, of course, utterly ridiculous; the magnitude of such fields is minimal and the likelihood that they have any effect whatsoever on the risk of breast cancer even less. I would point out that advice from someone whose claim to fame is to be the “father of applied kinesiology,” a particularly silly form of quackery is likely to be as based in science as applied kinesiology is; i.e., not at all.

Much of the rest of the article includes typical misinformation about mammography, including exaggerated fears about the radiation. I’ve discussed such issues before many, many times before; so I refer you to various links. Suffice it to say: Mercola, as usual, doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Breast Cancer Awareness Month is the proverbial two-edged sword. On the one hand, those of us in the field can take advantage of the event to highlight issues of breast cancer and breast health and try to call attention to new science and new discoveries about breast cancer. On the other hand, we have promoters of pseudoscience like Mike Adams and Joe Mercola to contend with. Given that there’s still a week left in the month, I have to wonder what, if anything, they’ll come up with next. Whatever it is, you can be sure it won’t be based on science.

FacebookGoogle BuzzDigg<!--<!--LinkedInStumbleUponLiveJournalShare

Steve Jobs’ medical reality distortion field

As I pointed out in my previous post about Steve Jobs, I’m a bit of an Apple fan boy. A housemate of mine got the very first Mac way back in 1984, and ever since I bought my first computer that was mine and mine alone back in 1991 (a Mac LC), I’ve used nothing but Macintosh computers, except when compelled to use Windows machines by work—and even then under protest. Indeed, as I searched for jobs at various times in my life, I asked myself whether I could accept a job at an institution that didn’t permit me to have a Mac in my office, such as the V.A. Fortunately, I never had to make that choice. All of this explains why I paid a lot of attention to Steve Jobs and also why his death saddened me and, relevant to this blog, the clinical history of the cancer that killed him fascinates me.

It’s often been said that there was a sort of “reality distortion field” around Steve Jobs. It was a part joking, part derogatory, part admiring term applied to Jobs’ talent for persuasion in which, through a combination of personal charisma, bravado, hyperbole, marketing, and persistence, Jobs was able to persuade almost anyone, even developers and engineers, of almost anything. In particular, it referred to his ability to convince so many people that each new Apple product was the greatest thing ever, even when that product had obvious flaws. Unfortunately, as more news comes out about how Steve Jobs initially dealt with his diagnosis of a neuroendocrine tumor of the pancreas (specifically, an insulinoma) back in 2003 and 2004, it’s become apparent that Jobs had his own medical reality distortion field, at least in the beginning right after his diagnosis of a rare form of pancreatic cancer, that allowed him to come to think that he might be able to reverse his cancer with diet plus various “alternative” modalities.

In the immediate aftermath of Steve Jobs’ death, I summarized the facts about Jobs’ case that were known at the time. In particular, I took issue with the claims of a skeptic that “alternative medicine killed Steve Jobs.” At the time, I pointed out that, although it was very clear that Steve Jobs did himself no favors by delaying his initial surgery for nine months after his initial diagnosis, we do not have sufficient information to know what his clinical situation was and therefore how much, if at all, he decreased his odds of survival by not undergoing surgery expeditiously. To recap: Did Steve Jobs harm himself by trying diet and alternative medicine first? Quite possibly. Did alternative medicine kill him? As I’ve argued before, that’s impossible to say, and any skeptic who dogmatically makes such an argument has taken what we known beyond what can be supported. Regular readers know that when I see a story that looks as though “alternative medicine” directly contributed to the death of someone, I usually pull no punches, but in this case I had a hard time being so definitive because the unknowns are too many, with all due respect to Ramzi Amri, a Research Associate at Harvard Medical School who in my opinion also went too far. I did, however, point out that I’m always open to changing my opinion if new evidence comes in. Jobs was always incredibly secretive about his medical condition, so much so that it didn’t even come out in the press until after it had happened that he had undergone a liver transplant in 2008 for metastatic insulinoma in his liver, just as his cancer diagnosis in 2003 remained secret for 9 months, not being revealed until he sent an e-mail to Apple employees announcing that he had undergone surgery.

It turns out that, with the imminent release of a major biography of Steve Jobs, more information is finally trickling out about his medical history. For instance, Jobs’ biographer Walter Isaacson is going to appear on 60 Minutes this Sunday, and apparently he is going to say this:

Everyone else wanted Steve Jobs to move quickly against his tumor. His friends wanted him to get an operation. His wife wanted him to get an operation. But the Apple CEO, so used to swimming against the tide of popular opinion, insisted on trying alternative therapies for nine crucial months. Before he died, Jobs resolved to let the world know he deeply regretted the critical decision, biographer Walter Isaacson has told 60 Minutes.

“We talked about this a lot,” Isaacson told 60 Minutes of Jobs’s decision to treat a neuroendocrine tumor in his pancreas with an alternative diet rather than medically recommended surgery. “He wanted to talk about it, how he regretted it….I think he felt he should have been operated on sooner… He said, ‘I didn’t want my body to be opened…I didn’t want to be violated in that way.’”

Isaacson is also quoted as saying about Jobs:

He’s regretful about it… Soon everybody is telling him, ‘Don’t try and treat it with these roots and vegetables and these kinds of things…’ By the time they operate on him they notice it has spread to the tissues around the pancreas.

You know, I think I’ll have to buy this book when it comes out next week, if only to read the chapters on Jobs’ illness. Assuming that the account above is true, what does it tell us? First, it doesn’t significantly change my original assessment that, at the time of surgery in 2004, Jobs probably didn’t have metastatic disease. The reason I say that is because if Jobs had any evidence of metastatic disease, it is highly doubtful that a surgical oncologist would have undertaken as huge an operation as the Whipple procedure, an operation that is usually only performed with curative intent. It’s very rare that this operation is done for solely palliative purposes, because the potential for complications is fairly high, and even when there are no complications it permanently alters the GI physiology of the person undergoing it. With that in mind, the report above implies to me is that Jobs’ tumor had grown larger and started to invade through the capsule of the pancreas into the surrounding fatty connective tissue. Further, it’s also not clear whether this tumor was seen on imaging before his operation or whether it was the finding of microscopic tumor deposits outside of the pancreas in the surgical specimen removed. Given how indolent insulinomas usually are, especially if they’re functional, as Jobs’ tumor appears to have been from all news reports (when it recurred Jobs attributed his medical leave to a “hormone imbalance”), it’s not clear that his surgeon wouldn’t have found tumor spread found outside of the pancreas if he had undergone surgery right away. As Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society has pointed out, people “live with these tumors far longer than nine months before they’re even diagnosed.” I suggest going back and read my post on the early detection of cancer, particularly the part about lead time bias, for an explanation of why the nine month delay might not have mattered much. As I have said before, biology is king and queen, and for certain tumors in certain patients biology trumps whatever we can throw at them.

Another interesting tidbit of information coming out just now is just what Jobs did during those nine months during which he delayed having surgery. This ABC News report hints at it:

Jobs, fascinated by Eastern mysticism in his youth, believed in alternative herbal treatments, and sources have told ABC News in the past that they thought he minimized the seriousness of his condition. One source close to Jobs said he kept his medical problems private, even from members of Apple’s board of directors — who finally had to persuade him his health was of critical importance to Apple’s success and the value of its stock to shareholders.

And this AP report states:

Instead, he tried a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbal remedies and other treatments he found online, and even consulted a psychic. He also was influenced by a doctor who ran a clinic that advised juice fasts, bowel cleansings and other unproven approaches, the book says, before finally having surgery in July 2004.

This is fairly vague, although one wonders if this acupuncturist is identified in the book, you know, the one who allegedly told Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez that she was trying to get Jobs to see him. Maybe Gonzalez wasn’t lying after all, because the description in the passage above does sound a lot like the Gonzalez protocol, which involves juice fasts, a whole lot of supplements, various other radical diet manipulations, plus daily (or more) coffee enemas. Could it be that Gonzalez did for a while influence Jobs?

Perhaps the book will tell.

Then there’s this video from the ABC News report:

There he is, at right about the 2:00 mark: Dr. Dean Ornish. In fact, from the news report, it appears that Dr. Ornish was not only Jobs’ friend but his doctor as well. Dr. Ornish is a problematic woo-prone physician in that, while hanging out with the likes of Andrew Weil, Rustum Roy, and Deepak Chopra, he tries to do actual science but unfortunately just doesn’t do a particularly good job of it. That in and of itself wouldn’t be so horrible, except that he draws very strong inferences from what his data show that go far beyond what is supportable by the science. Despite all these problems, there is still hope that Ornish is reachable by science-based medicine; he just has to give up his tendency to keep linking his diet with “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) and “integrative medicine” and embrace more rigorous, hypothesis-grounded science.

So, until I can get my hands on the book (and actually have time to read it, or at least the chapters on Jobs’ illness), what can I reasonably conclude based on what is known now? First, my original assessment has changed only slightly. Based on this new information, it appears likely to me that Jobs probably did decrease his chances of survival through his nine month sojourn into woo. On the other hand, it still remains very unclear by just how much he decreased his chances of survival. My best guesstimate is that, thanks to the indolent nature of functional insulinomas and lead time bias, it was probably only by a relatively small percentage. I also feel compelled to point out that accepting that Jobs’ choice to try “alternative medicine” first probably decreased somewhat his chances of surviving his cancer is a very different thing than concluding that “alternative medicine killed Steve Jobs,” which is in essence what Ramzi Amri and Brian Dunning both did. The first statement is a nuanced assessment of probabilities based on science and taking into account uncertainty; the latter statement is black-and-white thinking, in essence the mirror image of Nicholas Gonzalez’s claim that if only Jobs had come to see him he could have been saved.

Finally, what does this incident say about alternative medicine for cancer? Certainly, it shows that even someone as brilliant as Steve Jobs can be prone to denial, and, yes, even magical thinking, as this ABC News report points out:

How could Jobs have made such a decision?

“I think that he kind of felt that if you ignore something, if you don’t want something to exist, you can have magical thinking…we talked about this a lot,” Isaacson told CBS News.

No doubt that’s another key component of the appeal of alternative medicine: Magical thinking. Just eat this root, do these colon cleanses, let this healer manipulate your energy fields, and everything will be fine. No nasty invasive surgery that will permanently alter your body and how it functions. No poisonous chemotherapy. Unfortunately, reality doesn’t work this way, no matter how powerful the reality distortion field. Ultimately, reality intrudes, as it did for Jobs. When it did, when a followup scan apparently revealed that his insulinoma had grown, Jobs realized he had made a horrible mistake and tried to correct his course by undergoing surgery right away. It’s not clear whether his time in his self-created medical reality distortion field ultimately led to his demise or whether his fate was sealed when he was first diagnosed. Again, there’s just too much uncertainty ever to know for sure, and even if Jobs did decrease his odds of survival significantly it’s impossible to say whether the delay meant the difference between life and death in his specific case. What is clear is that no reality distortion field can long hold cancer at bay. Reality always eventually wins over magical thinking, no matter how much it might appear that magical thinking is winning at any given time.

FacebookGoogle BuzzDigg<!--<!--LinkedInStumbleUponLiveJournalShare

Alternative Vaccination Schedules

Evidently the 7 billionth human is going to be born on October 31. Happy birthday and welcome to the Earth.  If you were unfortunate enough to be born into a developing country or a affluent California family, you may not receive your vaccinations, and may join one the 57 million who die each year of vaccine preventable diseases (VPD).

And if you are doubly unlucky, you may be exposed to illness from an unvaccinated friend, family or health care worker before you can get your vaccines, and join the ranks of the ‘only’s.’  The ‘only’s’ are those who die of vaccine preventable diseases and are mentioned in anti-vaccine literature in a sentence like ‘VPD X is a mild illness in most children and only kills Y% of cases ’.  As I have said before the anti-vaxers do not care for whom the bell tolls.

I am no good at statistics.  I signed up for, and dropped, statistics at least 4 times in college.  Once they got past the bell shaped curve, it was one incomprehensible huh?  Part of the problem with statistical concepts such as risks, both relative and absolute, is that it is often impossible to get a feel from what they represent. For me it is like metric measurements.  I know what a 8 mile hike represents, but not an 8 kilometer hike.  Same with centigrade and liters.  I have been unable to internalize what metric means in my daily life.

Some statistics I have to accept with no real feeling as to their magnitude.  That estimated 57 million deaths from vaccine preventable illness?  That’s a number I can’t wrap my head around.  It translates to about 148,000 a day, or the population of my home town Portland, dying every two days.  I can’t imagine that volume of death.  In 30 years I have seen exactly one death from a VPD,  a pregnant female who developed chickenpox and its resultant pneumonia.   Chicken pox, hepatitis A and B, and pertussis are the only viral VPD’s of which I have seen more than one case.   The only vaccine preventable illness I see routinely, and I should put preventable in quotes because I am not so sure the disease is currently preventable in adults, is the Pneumococcus.  Certainly vaccination of kids with the conjugate vaccine has lead to a decrease in disease in adults, but that appears to be a temporary victory and the vaccine for adults, the Pneumovax, is of marginal efficacy.

I know intellectually that VPD’s are a major source of morbidity and mortality in the rest of the world, and that they, along with many other infections,  are an airplane flight away from starting an outbreak.  It has happened with mumps and measles, and it will happen again.  But VPD’s have virtually no impact on my day to day experience as an infectious disease doctor and as head of our Infection Control programs.  My time and energy are directed elsewhere.

What are parents to do?  When raising kids in the US there is no need to worry directly about VPD’s. It is more a theoretical worry,  because thanks in part to vaccines, the childhood plagues of the past are history, and who needs to fret about history when there are real risks to your children.   I wonder, given the hassle of getting the kids to the pediatricians, how compulsive I would have been about getting my kids vaccinated on schedule if it were not a requirement for school.  I  probably would have kept reasonably on track, like my dental cleaning, but would not have been the model of promptness, given the lack of VPD’s in the community.  It is nice to have the stick of the educational system keeping us honest, and the schools are wise to have immunization as a condition of enrollment.  Schools represent an excellent center for rapid infectious disease amplification and spread.

Laziness is evidently not the main reason that parents do not get their kids vaccinated according to the CDC guidelines.  Pediatrics this month has an article, Alternative Vaccination Schedule Preferences Among Parents of Young Children, that evaluated why parents are using alternative vaccine schedules. They polled the parents of kids between the ages of 6 months and six years of age about their utilization of the vaccine schedule, and I can’t decide if the results are good or bad, given the large number of irascible contrarians in the US population. Or perhaps I watch too much cable news. I am an optimist at heart so  I suppose the glass is half full, albeit with bile.

13% of parents interviewed were using an alternative vaccination schedule, but  only 2% refused all vaccinations.  Most, rather than no vaccination, refused some vaccinations or waited until the children were older before giving the vaccination.  So is 2% complete refusers, a low number or a high number?  Does 13% qualify for an only? Is 87% great?  Well, no.  For most diseases, the coverage rates you want to maximize herd immunity for those who cannot be immunized is in the 95% plus range.  I always emphasize for the housestaff that the first word in my medical subspeciality is infectious.  Not kind of infectious or sort of infectious.  These beasts have evolved to rapidly jump from person to person and it takes very little exposure for them to cut loose in populations.  In the old days my field was called contagious diseases, and I kind of prefer that title, even though most of the diseases in the hospital are no longer particularly contagious.

Good news: “Among the alternatively vaccinating parents, only 8% reported using a well-known alternative schedule, such as those promoted by Dr William Sears (6%) and Dr Donald Miller (2%).”  It would appear that the advice of Dr. Sears et. al. is being mostly ignored by the alternative vaccinators.

Bad news: However, with true American do-it-yourself Dunning Kruger gumption,

it was more common for alternative vaccinators to indicate that they themselves (41%) or a friend (15%) had developed the schedule. Among the 36% of respondents who endorsed the “other” response to this query, several indicated in the free-text section that they had “worked with their child’s physician” to develop the alternative schedule.

A do-it-yourself vaccination schedule.  It flabbers my gaster.  Having spent most of my adult life thinking about infections and their treatment and prevention, I find the field almost impossibly difficult.  The decisions that go into the CDC vaccination schedule represent the best opinion of some the brightest and most experienced minds in medicine who are not me.  Joke.  Really.  I would only question the CDC if I had spent three professional lifetimes in the field of vaccinations.  And yet time with the googles and talking with friends and family is evidently enough to come up with your own approach to the vaccination schedule.  I am glad these parents are not also responsible for deciding on doing an appendectomy or piloting my airplane.  I have asked this in the past, but what is it about medicine where people think they can know better with no experience and little education?  It is my field of expertise and I am more often in not uncertain if I know better.

It would appear that physicians may be a bigger problem.  Co-dependent is the term, I think.

While 8% had to change providers because they wanted to use an alternative schedule and

30% their child’s doctor “seemed hesitant to go along” with their vaccination preferences but still agreed to do so, 40% indicated that their child’s doctor “seemed supportive” of their vaccination preferences, and 22% indicated that their child’s doctor had been the one to suggest using an alternative vaccination schedule.

Of 2064 respondents, 59 (22% of 13%) found a physician who recommended an alternative schedule.  We do not know if that was a bias (parents knew about that providers dirty little secret when choosing a doctor for their child) or the number of docs promoting potentially dangerous vaccination schedules is much higher than I would have thought.   Still, that is almost 3% of doctors who are, well, wackaloons.  3% is not an only. 3% is appalling. Would you want 3% of your surgeons to have a severe shake or 3% of your pilots to have narcolepsy?

It is interesting to see what vaccines the parents elected not to give to their kids or delay in giving.

It reminds me of the Eisenberg article in the NEJM http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8418405 where it was purported that 35% of Americans use alternative medicine.  When you look at the data, it is only by  using an extremely broad definition of unconventional including relaxation techniques and commercial weight loss  programs could the 1 in three statistic be reached.  Real wackaloon therapies like homeopathy and energy healing were in the 1% range.  I found that table of unconventional medicine use in that continually favorably spun article reassuring, not worrisome.  Americans are not as gullible as the SCAM proponents would wish.  I try and keep that in mind when I watch Presidential debates.  Repeat after me.  Americans are not THAT gullible.

Even though AOA, Jenny McCarthy  and others have worked hard to spread fear about vaccinations and have gladly taken credit for that fear, it appears that the message is not as effective as they might wish.

The list is, very arguably, reassuring.  As far as the disease severity is concerned, the list is roughly in order of morbidity and mortality risks for kids. If I had to rank vaccines in the order I would give them up if forced, that is about the order I would do it.  I would give up flu vaccination first and polio and pertussis last, although it is akin to deciding in what order I would like organs removed.  I really would just as soon keep them all, thank you very much.

However, a glass 6 to 86% empty, it is still not full.   Herd immunity and the group benefits are, I know, a poor reason to recommend vaccination.  Presidential politics reminds me that there is always a strong ’screw you’  sentiment in the US. I only saw it on the Daily Show, but I think Ron Paul being asked if he would let an uninsured patient trauma just die the archetype of that attitude. Being your brothers keeper is low on the US to do list, and if my child’s lack of vaccination leads to someone else illness and death, so be it.  There was  a time when the concept of a rising tide lifting all boats was a public health concept embraced by most, when we worked together for the common good.  A life in medicine has definitely demonstrated that that idea, if indeed it was once alive, is dead and buried with a stake in the heart, beheaded and covered in garlic, not that health care and public health is a vampire.

The attitude of ‘me first’ is oddly seen in health care workers, as I subscribe to the idea that in medicine you have an obligation to always put your patients first. Despite hospitalized patients being particularly susceptible to acquiring influenza, that about 1 in 5 cases of flu are subclinical and if acquired in the hospital, the patient has a 27% chance  of dying of flu, 36% or more of HCW’s refuse the flu vaccine each year.  It is not as if they have some special knowledge that prevents them from receiving the flu.  They give the same old dumb ass reasons every year.

Still, even small decreases in vaccination rates have disproportionate adverse consequences, as “1% increase in the proportion of school-aged children who were underimmunized, the risk of pertussis infection among fully vaccinated children doubled.”  I would wager that there are similar ill effects from avoiding other vaccines; it would seem plausible.  But how does a parent understand the abstract concept and act accordingly when there is no disease in their immediate environment?  Only Sherlock Holmes was wise enough to understand the significance of the dog that did not bark.  I had a similar problem with hand hygiene for years, the lack to understanding that not washing hands today leads to an infection tomorrow. It took a decade of intensive work as well as a change in how hands are hygienated  (from soap and water to alcohol foam) to take rates from 20% to 95%, although I suspect the real driving force was the knowledge that infection rates were going to be published for all to see.  Impending public embarrassment is a powerful motivator.

The main reason (61%) of  parents altered the vaccination schedule is ‘it seemed safer’.  It is better to feel safe than to be safe; the spirit of Fernando lives on.  These parents were also more likely to see the risk of disease and transmission to be less, and have more non-mainstream vaccination beliefs; it seems that the  ‘too many, too soon mantra’, of the anti-vax proponents is resonating with alternative vaccinators.  If there is a fear of autism as a reason for changing the schedule, it is not addressed in the paper.  However by delaying the vaccinations past the age of onset of autism diagnosis, parents may feel safer in giving their children the vaccines.   It would have also have been interesting to know what particular fears and experiences lead to the use of an alternative vaccination schedules.

Rare adverse experiences, even if not casual, can have a disproportionate influence on future behavior.  I know clinically I remember bad outcomes with far more clarity than the successes.  Even when I know the complication were unrelated to my therapeutic intervention or a known, and rare, complication of care (like deafness from aminoglycosides from treatment of enterococcal endocarditis), where I can at least rationalize that it was the occasional misfortune that happens as part of even the best of care, on occasion I still have to fight the urge not to repeat the past intervention for fear of a repeat of the same complication.  It is hard not to give in to the fear, even when I know the fear is irrational.

It could be a lot worse.  The glass could have been even emptier.

…nearly 1 of 4 parents (22%) following the recommended schedule disagreed or strongly disagreed that the schedule “recommended by vaccination experts” was the best one to follow. Similarly, 1 of 5 parents who followed the recommended vaccination schedule thought that delaying vaccine doses was safer than providing them according to the recommended schedule.

I find that a curiosity,  that a significant number of patients were choosing to do something to their kids that they did not think was best for them.  There is no reason given for that choice, but there appears to be a sizable number of patients are at risk to opt out of the vaccination schedule if given the opportunity.  Equally curious is the 19% of alternative vaccinators who think delaying vaccination increases the risk of infection and spread of diseases, yet delay all the same.  Do they think that the risk of the vaccine is greater than the diseases?  They must, although the sign of an educated person is the ability to hold two contradictory thoughts in the head at the same time.

The preponderance of information in the medical literature on vaccinations is as clear as any topic in medicine.  Vaccines are effective and they are safe.  The best bet for keeping your child, and your community, healthy is to get vaccinated and to do it on schedule.  There are people who see the issue differently, and is often the case, the reasons are more subtle and complicated that one would except.  And there is still much to be understood as to why people do and do not participate in the vaccination schedule.

FacebookGoogle BuzzDigg<!--<!--LinkedInStumbleUponLiveJournalShare

The Cure

Legislative Alchemy

In Legislative Alchemy I: Naturopathy, II: Chiropractic and III: Acupuncture, we learned how state legislatures transform scientifically implausible and unproven diagnostic methods and treatments into legal health care practices. Examples typical of the sheer nonsense found in both proposed and actual legislation include:

Naturopathic health care [is] a system of health care practices for the prevention, diagnosis, evaluation and treatment of illnesses, injuries and conditions of the human body through the use of education, nutrition, natural medicines and therapies and other modalities which are designed to support, stimulate or supplement the human body’s own natural self-healing processes.

[Chiropractic is] the science of adjustment, manipulation and treatment of the human body in which vertebral subluxations and other malpositioned articulations and structures that may interfere with the normal generation, transmission and expression of nerve impulse between the brain, organs and tissue cells of the body, which may be a cause of the disease, are adjusted, manipulated or treated.

[Acupuncture is] a form of health care that is based on a theory of energetic physiology that describes and explains the interrelationship of bodily organs or functions with an associated acupuncture point or combination of points that are stimulated in order to restore the normal function of the bodily organ or function.

This is gobbledygook, tarted up with a few scientific-sounding terms — “physiology,” “tissue cells,” “diagnosis.”

 

We know in fact that:

The legalization of nonsense as health care has a deleterious effect on the public. Each year, millions in the U.S. visit state-licensed naturopaths, chiropractors and acupuncturists, exposing themselves to diagnoses of conditions that do not exist and treatments for these non-existent conditions, as well as treatment of real diseases with implausible and ineffective therapies. They will spend millions of dollars on these visits, paying with either their money or yours.

Although it is reasonable to assume that correct diagnosis of a real disease or condition will be at times foregone and effective treatment delayed in these visits, we don’t really know the full extent because no one appears to be looking at this issue in a systematic way, although we do have anecdotal reports. As well, it is reasonable to assume that these unnecessary treatments for imagined conditions will be injurious in and of themselves in some cases. Again, all we have are anecdotal reports, as no one is collecting the data in any systematic way.

Which brings us to . . .

The Cure

One possible solution is that states stop further licensing of “CAM” providers. Although I have not researched the issue, I do know of one instance in which this occurred. In 1959, the Florida legislature abolished the licensing authority for naturopaths, although anyone who had a license at that time was allowed to continue practicing. Anyone else holding himself out as a naturopath in Florida can be prosecuted for the unlicensed practice of a health care profession. Attempts to re-established naturopathy licensing in Florida have failed.

As you can well imagine, it would be a long, contentious, expensive and laborious process to halt the licensing of chiropractors in all 50 states, acupuncturists in 43 states and naturopaths in the 16 states where they are currently licensed.

A second, simpler solution presents itself in the form of curtailing the use of implausible and unproven practices via legislation without directly repealing the “CAM” provider practice acts. The basic premise is that scientifically plausible health care practices can be used unless and until they are shown not to work. Implausible practices, however, must meet a higher standard. In other words, it is in essence “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” fashioned into health care consumer protection law.

Before looking at how this might be achieved, let’s begin with proposed legislative findings. These are typically recited at the beginning of a bill and become part of the bill’s legislative history. In turn, should a court need to interpret particular language in the bill once it is enacted into law, the legislative history can be used in determining what the legislature meant, referred to as “legislative intent.”

We will call our proposed state legislation

The Science-Based Healthcare Practices Act

Legislative Findings:

Whereas, the Legislature finds that those healthcare practices not based on generally accepted scientific principles and those healthcare practices which have been proven ineffective:

cause unnecessary expenditure of time and money by the public for ineffective treatments; and

expose the public to the risk of delay of appropriate and timely diagnosis and treatment; and

violate nationally and internationally accepted ethical norms; and

pose an unnecessary risk to the public health by exposing the public to treatments that carry risk of harm without a sufficient benefit to justify that risk.

Whereas, the Legislature finds that healthcare practices not based on generally accepted scientific principles misrepresent the sciences of biology, physiology, anatomy, physics and chemistry to the public, which undermines the legitimate public interest in a scientifically literate citizenry.

Therefore, the Legislature finds that it is in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare to protect the public from healthcare practices which are not based on generally accepted scientific principles or have proven ineffective.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

The proposed statute would read, in part, as follows:

Sec. XXX.xxx, (Your State’s Name Here) Statutes

(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of (Your State) law, no healthcare practitioner licensed by this state shall engage in the diagnosis, treatment, operation, or prescription for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity, or other physical or mental condition if such diagnosis, treatment, operation, or prescription is implausible because its implied mechanisms or putative effects contradict well-established laws, principles, or empirical findings in chemistry, biology, anatomy or physiology, and it is either

(i) not supported, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, by good quality randomized, placebo-controlled trials, or

(ii) not supported, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, by a Cochrane Collaboration Systematic Review or a systematic review or meta-analysis of like quality.

The standard “is implausible because its implied mechanisms or putative effects contradict well-established laws, principles, or empirical findings in chemistry, biology, anatomy or physiology” was taken from “Illinois Department of Professional Regulation Medical Disciplinary Board (MDB). Board Policy Statement: Complementary and Alternative Therapies. November 1999,” quoted in an SBM post by Dr. Kimball Atwood. While the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation’s policy was, as a whole, disappointing, its definition of “implausible” is useful.

The level of evidence required in for implausible practices is based on R. Barker Bausell, Snake Oil Science: The Truth About Complementary and Alternative Medicine (New York: Oxford University Press 2007), Chapter 11 (“What High-Quality Trails Reveal About CAM”) and Chapter 12 (“What High Quality Systematic Reviews Reveal About CAM”).

Why, you may ask, if a practice is implausible, would we allow it at all? Why the provision regarding studies?

This is a perfectly reasonable criticism and if you wish to go ahead with the process of eliminating such practices altogether from state law, please do. I simply offer this as a solution which might be politically achievable, as the proposed legislation does not actually do away with any “CAM” provider type.

In opposition to this legislation, “CAM” providers would be put in the position of arguing that their diagnostic methods and practices are not implausible, which is fairly easily defeated per the legislation’s definition. Alternatively, they would have to argue that, even if implausible, their diagnostic methods and therapies should be permitted anyway. This is, of course, what is already happening — they are used despite implausibility and lack of evidence,a position “CAM” providers currently need not defend once they achieve licensed health care provider status.

I also agree that it is not a good idea to spend considerable resources testing biologically implausible claims and this post is not an argument that even more resources should be expended doing so. But, while the U.S. government is at it, we might as well put the results to some good use.

The proposed legislation’s “out” based on high-quality trials also helps avoid a claim of direct conflict between the “CAM” practice acts and the new law, a conflict that would invariably wind up in the courts. For example, the proposed law does not prevent a chiropractor from claiming he can detect “subluxations” in a patient and proceeding to “adjust” them for the purpose of, say, treating the patient’s asthma. But because detection and adjustment of subluxations in general and its effectiveness in treating asthma in particular are highly implausible, a chiropractor will need an high level of evidence to legally make this claim. That evidence does not currently exist — and let me just go out on a limb here and predict it never will.

Likewise, an acupuncturist is not prevented from recommending acupuncture to treat infertility but, again, because of the implausibility of the proposed underlying mechanism of acupuncture and its putative effect on infertility, he must meet a high level of evidence to make that recommendation and commence treatment. Again, the evidence isn’t there and, again, I’ll predict it won’t be in the future.

Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence

But, what about those diagnostic methods and therapies, like chelation, which, at least initially, seemed plausible, but, even though disproved, continue in use?

For them, we have this:

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of (Your State) law, no health care practitioner licensed by this state, shall engage in the diagnosis, treatment, operation, or prescription for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity, or other physical or mental condition even if such diagnosis, treatment, operation, or prescription is plausible because its implied mechanisms or putative effects are in accordance with well-established laws, principles, or empirical findings in chemistry, biology, anatomy or physiology, if

(i) good quality randomized, placebo-controlled trials, or

(ii) a Cochrane Collaboration Systematic Review or a systematic review or meta-analysis of like quality,

demonstrate, within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that said diagnosis, treatment, operation or prescription is not effective for said human disease, pain, injury, deformity, or other physical or mental condition.

The Science-Based Healthcare Practices Act would not eliminate all implausible and unproven healthcare. For example, a diagnostic method like thermography for breast cancer detection might slip by the implausibility test and remain on the market, not because it’s a reliable diagnostic tool, but because no trial meeting our statutory standard says it isn’t reliable.

And just to be sure

I propose a few other provisions to avoid attempted end-runs around the legislation’s purpose.

To help forestall any fudging on the science, the following would be included:

“Each term in this section shall be interpreted according to its generally accepted meaning
in the scientific community.”

To make clear that “subluxations,” “qi,” vitalism and the like do not get a pass on science simply by virtue of their inclusion in the practice acts:

“It shall not be a defense to prosecution for a violation of this section that a diagnosis, treatment, operation, or prescription is within the scope of practice, as defined in Chapter X, (Your State) Statutes, of a healthcare practitioner accused of said violation.”

And, to help ensure that poor quality trials cannot be used to buoy scientifically implausible health care practices (with thanks again to R. Barker Bausell, Ph.D.),

“Good quality, randomized placebo controlled trial,” shall mean a trial meeting the following minimum criteria:

(i) involving the random assignment of participants to a credible placebo control group; and

(ii) employing at least fifty participants per group; and

(iii) losing no more than 25 per cent of its participants over the course of the study; and

(iv) published in a high-impact, peer-reviewed research journal.”

Enforcement

Now that we’ve created a prohibition against implausible practices without really good evidence that they actually work, as well as plausible ones that don’t work, how to enforce it?

That authority could be given to the various boards which currently oversee health care practitioners but this seems inconsistent with the purpose of the act. If the legislature is trying to erect a barrier of scientific evidence (both basic and clinical) between the practitioner who employs implausible diagnostic methods and therapies and the patient, then the very practitioners who ignore science would not seem best suited to the task.

The medicine and osteopathic boards might be suitable to enforce our proposed legislation as against M.D.s and D.O.s, but even medical boards have proven reluctant to discipline physicians whose practice includes implausible and unproven therapies. In fairness, perhaps they were hamstrung by lack of statutory firepower sufficient to specifically address implausible, unproven and disproven practices.

One solution is to give enforcement authority to the state agency overseeing the unlicensed practice of a health care profession. This agency would already have the investigational and prosecutorial bureaucracy in place to proceed. Here, our proposed statute adopts its enforcement procedures from Florida’s “Unlicensed practice of a health care profession” statute, which gives the Department of Health (DOH) the authority to investigate and prosecute.

Briefly, if the DOH has probable cause to believe the Science-Based Healthcare Practices Act has been violated, it can issue a cease and desist order and impose a civil penalty. If the violator is recalcitrant, DOH can go to court seeking an injunction and the consequences escalate from there. Of course, the alleged violator can dispute the charges and have his day in court.

Conclusion

The Science-Based Healthcare Practices Act is an imperfect solution to the problem of legislative alchemy. It is preferable to avoid licensing practitioners whose tenets violate basic science. Given the impracticability of repealing over 100 separate state practice acts, imposing an evidence requirement for implausible practices offers — if I may — an alternative solution. The Act would also have the beneficial effect of curtailing the use of diagnostic methods and therapies which, although not implausible, have proven ineffective.

Suggestions for improvement are welcome.

 

 

 

FacebookGoogle BuzzDigg<!--<!--LinkedInStumbleUponLiveJournalShare