JUNE 2024 NEWS
Featured topic: COVID-19
On Science-Based Medicine,
David Gorsky:
Posted “How antivaxxers weaponize vaccine safety studies to falsely portray vaccines as dangerous, part 2: the children.” “Antivaxxers like to claim that vaccine researchers don’t bother to look for adverse events due to vaccines, when in fact this study and the study that I discussed in February are very strong evidence that public health officials and vaccine researchers are very much interested in carefully assessing the risk-benefit profiles of vaccines…What antivaxxers really don’t like is that the results of these large studies consistently fail to support their fear mongering portraying vaccines as massively dangerous compared to the disease, and ineffective, to boot. They will weaponize any large study that carefully and honestly reports adverse events from vaccination, ignoring the magnitude of the risks (almost always very small) versus the benefit (significantly greater than the risks).”
Wrote “Panel stacking: John Ioannidis versus a Delphi consensus statement on COVID-19.” “My former science idol John Ioannidis has published a paper citing a Delphi consensus statement on COVID-19 as evidence that the scientific community is ‘biased’ against his anti-‘lockdown’ pro-virus views. His descent continues apace.”
Mallory Harris:
Wrote “'Fauci Files' and Florida’s grand jury investigations fail to deliver.” “Although multiple antivaccine investigations have failed to deliver any substantive evidence of alleged crimes, the latest antivax flops won’t flip anyone.”
John Moore and Greg Gonsalves:
Wrote “Why is The New York Times now promoting an anti-science agenda?” “This essay stems from concerns about two editorials published in The New York Times recently. We felt that they were problematic in that the past is viewed through a blurred prism to produce revisionist history.”
Allison Neitzel:
Posted “The lab leak theory and the complicit media.” “How the media’s need for tales of intrigue and villains fosters the political weaponization of uncertainty.”
On Respectful Insolence, “Orac”:
Wrote “The New York Times goes all in on 'lab leak'.” “[Ethan Siegel:]’…it’s long past time to move past the ever-changing conspiracy theory of the lab leak hypothesis, and embrace reality. The genome of SARS-CoV-2 demonstrates it has a natural origin, whether we ever find the original virus in a wild population of animals or not…’ As Siegel put it, we knew this three years ago, and in the interim the evidence bas[e] supporting a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2 has only grown. In marked contrast, little regarding the evidence base for lab leak has changed in the last three years except that, increasingly, mainstream news outlets are giving space and fuel to conspiracy theorists like Alina Chan. The New York Times should be ashamed for lending its reputation to a conspiracy theory and the attacks on science and scientists resulting from it, but, sadly, it is far from alone when it comes to mainstream news outlets publishing credulous takes on this conspiracy theory.”
Posted “Rasmussen Reports eagerly plumbs Steve Kirsch-levels of antivax stupid.” “Rasmussen Reports is, ostensibly, a polling organization. Why does its most recent poll look like something an antivaxxer like Steve Kirsch dreamed up?”
Wrote “John Ioannidis attacks The BMJ as ‘biased’ about COVID-19 in a preprint. Irony meters everywhere explode.” “Kasper Kepp and John Ioannidis have published a preprint accusing The BMJ of ‘COVID advocacy’ bias in its publications. Although The BMJ has been bad on COVID-19 and vaccines, in this case the ‘bias’ is the rejection of COVID-19 minimization and ‘natural herd immunity’.”
Edzard Ernst posted:
“Individualized homeopathic medicines in the treatment of post-COVID-19 fatigue.” The main flaws in the study discussed by Ernst were: “The sample size was too small for a far-reaching conclusion. The study was not double blind. In other words the therapists had the opportunity to exert their influence on the patient to produce the desired outcome. Occam’s Razor demands that we assume this to be the real explanation of the positive effects observed here.”
On McGill Office for Science and Society, Jonathan Jarry posted:
“Spikeopathy speculative fiction contaminates the blood supply.” “Take-home message: The claim that the spike protein or its messenger RNA can be detected for weeks or months after vaccination is based on studies where fragments were barely detectable, often trillionths of a gram, which is in keeping with our understanding of biology. The fears around the wrong protein being made because the vaccine RNA has been modified is not backed up by the evidence, which shows that those wrong proteins are few and far in between and are likely destroyed by the cell like most malformed proteins we naturally produce. The idea that the spike protein would behave like a prion and cause disease is not based on laboratory studies in cells and animals, but rather on computer analyses of its sequence. Over 13 billion doses of the COVID-19 vaccines have been administered, with robust data showing they are overwhelmingly safe.”
Featured topic: chiropractic
Edzard Ernst:
Wrote “Adverse Events After Cervical Spinal Manipulation: a new (and most surprising) review.” “Why not be honest and simply state that RCTs are an inadequate tool for assessing the risks of spinal manipulation? And why ignore our review which, after all, is highly relevant and was published in a most visible journal? Did they perhaps read it and then decided to ignore it because it would have rendered their whole approach idiotic? I don’t know the answer to any of these questions. What I do know, however, is that this new review arrives at a utterly misleading and possibly harmful conclusion. It thus is a significant disservice to our need to making progress in this important area.”
Posted “Chiropractors’ profitable over-use of X-ray diagnostics: ‘scare tactics’ and ‘fear-mongering’.” A review by Williams et al. (J Clin Imaging Sci. 2024 Jun 5;14:18 Paper) was discussed.
Reported on criticism by an Australian government panel of spinal manipulation of babies, along with a discussion of the response by the Australian Chiropractors Association.
Wrote “'Maintenance care' is very good for chiropractic economics…but not for anything else!”
Posted “And again: spinal manipulation and mobilisation in paediatrics.” “I have always thought that people who, despite the largely lacking or flimsy evidence for spinal manipulations, insist on having manual therapy should consult a physiotherapist, rather than a chiropractor or osteopath.”
Wrote “Exercise for back pain prevention: forget about chiropractic, osteopathy, acupuncture, etc., exercise is by far the most promising treatment.”
Posted “Cervical spine manipulation and cervical artery dissection: an embarrassingly daft attempt of a white-wash.” “So, case reports ‘offer a framework for early signals of adverse events.’ To expect that they demonstrate a causal link is ill-informed. Their significance in relation to risks lies mostly in providing a signal, particularly if the signal becomes loud and clear due to numerous repetitions, as is the case in chiropractic manipulations. Once the signal is noted, it needs further investigation to determine its nature. In the absence of conclusive further studies, a signal that has emerged hundreds of times, as in chiropractic, it has to be taken seriously. In fact, the precautionary principle demands that we then assume causality until proven otherwise.”
Other topics
On Science-Based Medicine,
Scott Gavura:
Posted “Collagen supplementation: hype and hope.” “Based on what collagen is, how it’s absorbed, and how we know collagen is actually synthesized in the body, it’s highly implausible that the tiny amounts of additional protein consumed in most collagen peptide supplements consumed daily will have any meaningful therapeutic effects. Moreover, there is no evidence that if you take a collagen supplement, it will definitively end up in your skin, hair, or joints. Collagen peptides and other forms of collagen are sources of protein that are absorbed and used by the body. But there is no compelling evidence to demonstrate that they provide any meaningful benefits over other less expensive protein supplements – or more simply, just eating a diet with adequate amounts of protein.”
Wrote “Amazon goes where the FDA does not.” “Amazon is now forcing manufacturers to submit their products to third-party testing, something that isn’t currently required for dietary supplements sold in the country…While the third-party certification standards currently only apply to three categories of supplements [weight management, sexual enhancement and sports nutrition], this is expected to expand to other categories (and perhaps all supplements) sold on the website over time.”
David Gorski:
Posted “Yet another example of how 'new school' anti-COVID vaccine antivaxxers have become just antivaxxers now.” “Dr. Pierre Kory and the pseudomous Substacker known as A Midwestern Doctor provide two more examples of how ‘anti-COVID’ antivax has now become just antivax.”
Steven Novella:
Posted “What are 'adaptogens'?” “Actually the term ‘adaptogen’ was coined in 1947 by Soviet toxicologist Nikolai Lazarev. He failed, however, to discover anything specific to back up the concept, as did later research. The term has never been accepted as a genuine scientific concept, and is not recognized by the FDA as a legitimate claim…Now the term has a second life as just another marketing buzzword for snake oil products. It’s a perfect vague marketing term for a society that has a vague faith in science without really understanding it…”
On Respectful Insolence, “Orac”:
Posted “Quack tycoon Joe Mercola abandons an old antivax friend.” “Antivax Grande Dame Barbara Loe Fisher is lamenting how without warning her old friend, quack tycoon Joe Mercola, cut off his regular financial support of her antivax org.”
Edzard Ernst:
Wrote “I fear that so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) research is in trouble.” “If I am correct, this would mean that, in the long-term, one of the biggest enemy of SCAM are the SCAM researchers who, instead of testing hypotheses, abuse science by trying to confirm their hypotheses.”
Posted “How to mislead the public with a ‘Comprehensive Review’: homeopathy for gastroesophageal reflux disease.” “I think that reviews of this nature drawing such unwarranted conclusions are counter-productive – counter-productive even to those people whose aim it is to promote homeopathy. Nobody with an ounce of critical thinking capacity can take such nonsense seriously. The only possible conclusion that can be drawn from the presented evidence is along the following lines: This review failed to generate any sound evidence that homeopathy is an effective therapy for GERD.”
Posted “The influence of zodiac signs on health, well-being, quality of life, mortality, and infections.” “So, does astrology have any value in healthcare? The answer is as simple as it is unsurprising: No!”
Reported that “Potentially harmful homeopathic oral care products are being recalled.” “I feel like congratulating the manufacturer: not only have they managed to produce normally harmless products in such a way that they are dangerous, but also they are promoting a plethora of untruth and misleading statements about homeopathy.”
Reported the retraction of a review of acupuncture for low back and/or pelvic pain during pregnancy.
Posted “Research misconduct in China: an ever increasing worry.” “After studying Chinese TCM [traditional Chinese medicine] papers for more than 30 years, I feel increasingly concerned about the tsumani of either very poor quality or fabricated research coming out of China.”
Wrote “A new review and meta-analysis suggests that Reiki ‘demonstrated effectiveness’ – but I beg to differ.” The review concerned the use of reiki for alleviating anxiety. “I am dismayed to see that a decent journal (BMC Palliative Care) published such a fatally flawed review. The paper fails to discuss any of its obvious flaws. Specifically, it does not even specify what interventions were used in the various control groups. Do the journal editors, peer-reviewers and authors not appreciate that, without such information, the findings are uninterpretable? Or do they perhaps deliberately try to mislead us? If you ask me, this paper should be best withdrawn.”
Posted “Homeopathic cancer therapy? No, no, and no!” “The truth of the matter is that homeopathy for cancer is a dangerous misconception that could hasten the death of many vulnerable patients.”
Wrote “Aromatherapy: the ‘International Federation of Aromatherapists’ lists ‘some of the most effective’ essential oils against stress and anxiety.” Eleven essential oils were listed. Ernst found limited evidence in favor of four, very limited evidence for two, no sound evidence for four, and a negative study for the last.
Wrote “Geopathic stress allegedly can cause health issues such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis and cancer – BUT, PLEASE, DON’T BELIEVE SUCH NONSENSE!”
Discussed a study of homeopathy for hemorrhoids. “Yes, I know: it is not easy to keep a straight face when reading such a paper. And the task is not made easier when considering the affiliations of its authors: [various homeopathic institutions in India]…Let’s nevertheless ask three serious questions: According to classical homeopathy, for a cure, one needs a remedy that, when given to a healthy volunteer, causes the symptom one wants to treat. So, does sulfur etc. cause the symptoms of hemorrhoids? According to classical homeopathy, the remedy is supposed to cure the condition, not alleviate the symptoms. Is that what the results show? Is it plausible that homeopathy can have any effects on hemorrhoids? I am confident that the answers are: no, no and no.”
Posted “Pseudoscience in the cancer services of the English National Health Service.” A survey found widespread offering of pseudoscientific approaches.
On McGill Office for Science and Society,
Hosna Akhgary:
Wrote “A taste of bitter melon,” discussing Momordica charantia. “While this strange vegetable might offer some health benefits, it also carries risks that must be weighed. Until more comprehensive and methodologically sound studies are conducted, bitter melon should be approached with a healthy dose of skepticism and an understanding that, much like its taste, the truth about its benefits might be more bitter than sweet.”
Jonathan Jarry:
Posted “The blood microbiome is probably not real.” “Take-home message: Our blood was long considered to be sterile, meaning free of viable microbes, unless a dangerous infection leaked into it, causing sepsis. Studies have provided evidence for the presence of bacteria in the blood of some healthy humans, leading to the hypothesis that, much like in our gut, our blood is host to a microbiome. The largest study ever done on the topic provided strong evidence against this hypothesis. It seems that when non-disease-causing bacteria find themselves in our blood, it is temporary and occasional.”
Joe Schwarcz:
Asked, “Will eating potatoes extend your life?” (video with text) “What then are we to make of this study? Should we start eating 14 boiled potatoes a week to try to ward off that appointment with the Grim Reaper? Not without a study that follows two groups of subjects in which the only difference is boiled potato consumption.”
June – As noted in Consumer Health Digest, “KFF, a health-policy research, polling, and news organization, has launched its Misinformation and Trust Initiative ‘which is aimed at tracking health misinformation in the US, analyzing its impact on the American people, and mobilizing media to address the problem’.”
June 6 – Mariam Tucker reported that “Over-the-counter arthritis supplements pose adrenal danger.” “Use of over-the-counter arthritis supplements containing undisclosed glucocorticoids can lead to iatrogenic adrenal dysfunction, Cushing syndrome, and/or adrenal insufficiency (AI)…The specific supplements used were Artri King in eight of the patients, Ardosons in two, and Ajo Rey in one…The supplements are not believed to be sold in the United States, but they are available in Mexico and can be ordered online…”
June 24 – Alice Callahan asked, “Is fish oil helpful or harmful for the heart?” “Despite decades of research, the evidence for omega-3 supplements is murky.”
June 25 – Meeri Kim wrote “Turmeric supplements may harm the liver in some people.” A genetic variant found in 10% of the U.S. population results in increased susceptibility to liver injury. Some people are taking enormous doses of turmeric, along with black pepper to increase absorption of curcumin (the active ingredient).
Additions to previous month
May 14 – Jesse Greenspan wrote, “Is cold-water swimming good for you?” There are possible benefits, but the evidence is weak. There are also risks.
May 15 – Katie Suleta posted “Chris Kresser and the grift of nootropics supplements.” “Chris Kresser has multiple books, a website, a supplement line, a health coaching certification program, and he was a co-founder of the California Center for Functional Medicine…Kresser makes wild recommendations (e.g., specific dosages) often based on old, cherry picked studies and data from rodents. Kresser shows his lack of training and understanding of science through his recommendations of nootropics. Buyer beware, this stuff is not backed by science.” Products discussed are citicoline, lion’s mane mushroom, phosphatidylserine, Bacopa monnieri, Ginkgo biloba, uridine monophosphate, and Alpinia galanga.