SEPTEMBER 2024 NEWS

Other topics

On Science-Based Medicine,

Mark Crislip:

Posted “AI and the SCAM [so-called alternative medicine] literature.” Crislip queried OpenEvidence, an “AI-powered open information platform,” concerning homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture. The resulting assessments were gullible and did not consider scientific plausibility. “But understanding SCAMs is a learned skill. One cannot apply the standards of reality-based medicine to therapies that are based on fiction.”

David Gorski:

Wrote “RFK Jr.'s MAHA manifesto: How not to ‘make American healthy again’.” “Shortly after endorsing Donald Trump for President, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claimed he and Trump will ‘make America healthy again.’ His proposals to do that range from semi-reasonable to outright quackery.”
Posted “The NCCIH embraces the quackery that is 'functional medicine'.” “The bottom line here is that ‘whole person health’ and ‘whole person medicine’ serve the same purpose that the ‘holistic’ has always served among advocates of medicine that is not science-based, namely an excuse to bring in all manner of quackery in the name of being ‘holistic’ (or treating the ‘whole person’), particularly adding a dash of ‘biochemical individuality’ to justify doing whatever quackery a practitioner wants.”

On Respectful Insolence, “Orac”:

Posted “Elle Macpherson's breast cancer: another example of how antivax and quackery are inseparable.” “One characteristic that nearly all such testimonials share is that the woman giving the testimonial nearly always undergoes surgery (at least) to excise the primary tumor, a characteristic shared with testimonials for ‘alternative cancer cures’ for other surgically treated cancer…Remember, there’s a reason that I call these sorts of alternative breast cancer cure ‘testimonials.’ They more resemble religion than anything having to do with medicine or science. I also always feel obligated to point out that these testimonials almost never provide evidence for efficacy against cancer for the quackeries chosen. Elle Macpherson’s testimonial is no different.” A followup post was “Not exactly 'sensible medicine' for Elle Macpherson’s breast cancer.” “Adam Cifu and Vinay Prasad at Sensible Medicine defend Elle Macpherson’s decision not to undergo chemotherapy for her breast cancer.”

Edzard Ernst:

Posted “Bach Flower Remedies for perceived stress of nurses: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial.” No benefits were observed. “And why might anyone think that such a treatment could cause a significant effect? Search me! Bach Flower remedies do not contain sufficient amounts of active ingredients to cause any health effects beyond placebo! This means that the prior probability of such a study generating a positive finding is very close to zero. In turn, this means that research funds are more wisely spent elsewhere.”
Wrote “The amount of utterly useless 'research' into so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) is monstrous. A rant from a long-suffering researcher who reads all of this drivel.” “And, once you look at the myriad of useless papers that are being published in SCAM, you arrive at the conclusion that the effort and funds needed for conducting these nonsensical pseudoscientific studies must urgently be re-directed towards answering some of the many more meaningful research questions. To me, this is nothing less than an ethical imperative.”
Posted “Acupuncture research at its worst.” Ernst discussed a study of acupuncture for osteoarthritis of the knee, for which there were many previous studies; this one had no control group. “Research of this nature is dangerous: It undermines the trust people put in science. It makes a laughing stock of more serious attempts to test the value of acupuncture. It misuses the cooperation of patients who give their time and good will to advance our knowledge. It wastes precious resources. It is an incentive for others to do similarly nonsensical pseudo-science. It misleads patients and carers into believing in quackery. The only valid conclusion that can be drawn from this paper is, I think, this: The people involved in planning, conducting, supporting and publishing this study have little understanding of clinical research and should receive adequate education and training before they are allowed to continue.”
Discussed a study on laughter therapy. The therapy is claimed to provide a variety of benefits. “Many of these outcomes are, however, not as well-documented as claimed by proponents.”
Wrote “If you ask me, Chinese herbal medicines are best avoided.” “The more valid result of this study is that the use of CHMs is a risk factor for cardiovascular health in obese people. I fear that this might also be true for non-obese individuals and could also apply to non-cardiovascular areas of health. Just like any other form of herbal therapy, CHMs can contain toxic ingredients and might interact with prescribed medications. Unlike most other forms of herbal treatments CHMs are known to be often contaminated (e.g. with heavy metals) and/or adulterated (e.g. with illegal amounts of synthetic drugs). As they typically contain a multitude of herbs, the risk of interactions is also increased.”
Asked “Chiropractic – is it worth the taxpayer’s expense?” “Cost-effectiveness without effectiveness is not possible. Moreover, cost-effectiveness without an acceptable degree of safety is unlikely. In the case of chiropractic, we have hardly reliable proof of effectiveness or safety. And this means that, before we can consider chiropractic to be paid for from public money, we first need solid evidence for its safety and efficacy – each for the relevant health problem to be treated. Once we have reliable data about all this – AND ONLY THEN – might we consider including chiropractic into the public healthcare budget.”
Posted “’The power of reiki’ – or perhaps the failures of pseudo-science?” “The authors concluded that Reiki is effective for pain control and enhancing the immune system response. For the following reasons, I beg to differ: The patients of the verum group were fully aware of receiving the therapy; thus they were expecting/hoping to benefit from it. The patients of the control group received no therapy; thus they were disappointed which may have influenced the VAS ratings. The procalcitonin levels are of doubtful relevance; they changed only within the group which, in a controlled clinical trial that is supposed to compare groups is meaningless and most likely a chance finding. The only people who could have been blinded in this ‘single blind’ study were the evaluators of the results…which is meaningless if patients and therapists are not blinded. Because of all this, I feel that the conclusions should be re-written: Reiki is known to cause a placebo effect which most likely caused the observed outcomes.”
Discussed “Pilates for quality of life, fatigue and body image in head and neck cancer survivors.” “…the findings tell us far less than the results might imply. The naive reader would think they show the effectiveness of pilates excercises. This, however, would be erroneous. The positive results are to be expected, if only due to the extra attention given to the verum patients or the disappointment of the control group for not receiving it. If we truly want to evaluate the specific effects of a treatment like pilates, we need to design a different type of study. Nobody doubts that group exercise can improve plenty of subjective parameters. The question, I think, is whether pilates is better in achieving this aim than other forms of exercise.”
Wrote “’Cupping significantly improves pain and disability’ – so, why am I skeptical?” “A crucial point here is that only 3 of the included studies were ‘patient-blind,’ i.e. tried to control for placebo effects by using a sham procedure.” However, in each of these three, the patients easily could have told which group they were in. “In addition, we ought to remember that in no study was it possible to blind the therapists. Thus there is a danger of verbal or non-verbal communications impacting on the outcomes. In my view, it follows that the effectiveness of cupping is far less certain than the authors of this paper try to make us believe.”

On McGill Office for Science and Society:

Jonathan Jarry:

Posted a video, “Mercola: know the risks.” “Dr. Joe Mercola is practically synonymous with the wellness movement. He sells dietary supplements, opposes vaccines, and claims to want to help you improve your health. But can he be trusted? Jonathan Jarry, science communicator with McGill University’s Office for Science and Society, takes you on a wild ride from Mercola’s daily newsletter, full of cherry-picked half-truths, to answering the question of exactly who writes all of his articles, to the supernatural entity that is now giving him business advice. If you thought Mercola was just a genial, avuncular health influencer, you’re in for a shock.”
Wrote “What the media gets wrong about CAM.” A typical template for coverage of an alternative method was discussed. “The way in which reporters cover these stories does their audience a giant disservice.”
Wrote “Your hairdresser will heal you now.” “Take-home message: Trichothérapy, also known as energetic haircuts, is a made-up technique that claims that having your hair cut with a Japanese blade once used by samurais will release toxins and trauma. It is an attempt to turn hairdressers into alternative health practitioners. None of its claims are based in good science.”

Christopher Labos:

Discussed hyperbaric oxygen therapy. “In some cases the benefits are clear and in others the data are more equivocal. In some cases there is no justification for it. There is no reason to seek it out privately and it will not help treat multiple sclerosis, migraines, cancer or many other claims you might see online.”

Daniela Padres:

Wrote “Real gold or fool’s gold: the controversies of bee pollen.” “Bee pollen has the potential to be a nutritional gold mine, but there is still a lot of digging to be done. On the other hand, it’s proclaimed role as a breast enhancer is most likely fool’s gold.”

September – Gerald Rosen and Loren Pankratz wrote “Eye movement therapies, purple hats, and the Sagan standard.” “Despite its controversial history, numerous studies supported EMDR [Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprogramming], and it came to be recognized as an effective and evidence-based treatment (e.g., by the American Psychiatric Association and the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies). These endorsements are viewed not as testament to the therapeutic powers of eye movements but as indicants of just how deficient current criteria are for defining what it means to be an evidence-based treatment. Here the core problem is that the profession of psychology remains vulnerable to anyone who claims a new method, trademarks an acronym, conducts the required number of studies—however weak their designs may be—and gains recognition for devising an accepted method. This scenario has become a reality as evidenced by an ever-expanding list of competing eye movement therapies, each with its own preferred pattern and claims of cure.”

September 5 – Andrea Love and Katie Suleta wrote “Is 'wellness' bad news for healthcare?” “For all the credentialed and trained healthcare experts operating within the confines of evidence-based healthcare, there are practitioners in the wellness world operating in parallel without training or education. For every medication that's undergone clinical trials for safety and efficacy, multiple supplements haven't, yet claim to treat the same symptoms. For every preventive health recommendation, there is a detox or enema claiming to accomplish the same goal. The wellness industry is blurring the lines of what healthcare is, and it's confusing patients and providers alike.”

September 14 – An Editorial in The Lancet (2024 Sep 14;404(10457):991) was entitled “Direct-to-consumer medical testing: an industry built on fear.” “…many screening tests sold to the public would not be conducted within a formal health system. Some have no medical purpose. Weak regulation has enabled the direct-to-consumer medical testing industry to flourish, but its growth is fuelled by the exploitation of consumers’ fears and commercial interests that do not have our health at heart.”

September 16 –Andrea Love wrote “Vitamin C: scurvy savior or immune overdose? More of a good thing isn’t always better.” “Vitamin C supplementation has not been shown to prevent respiratory infections, reduce symptom severity, or meaningfully shorten duration of illness. So why do people keep reaching for the Emergen-C when they feel a throat tickle? Repetitive misinformation. Vitamin C supplementation also doesn’t prevent heart disease, macular degeneration, cataracts, or any of the myriad of other claims. Vitamin C misinformation in cancer pseudoscience is based on in vitro studies where cancer cells blasted with megadoses of vitamin C were killed. But guess what? You can do anything to cells on a piece of plastic…While legitimate vitamin C deficiency can impact your health, there’s a big difference between that and claims that excess vitamin C is advantageous.”

September 17 – Dani Blum wrote “The weight loss hack that claims to work like Ozempic.” “The latest addition to that list: a weight loss pill released this week by Lemme, Kourtney Kardashian’s supplement company…On its website, Lemme points to four studies that suggest some of its ingredients, including several plant extracts, can increase GLP-1 levels, suppress cravings and lead to minor weight loss. But experts cautioned that those trials are very small and only look at individual ingredients, not the pills themselves. ‘They’re not credible studies,’ said Dr. Pieter Cohen…Even if the pills did promote GLP-1 production, that alone does not necessarily translate to significant or sustained weight loss — after all, eating food also stimulates the hormone.” Joe Schwartz also discussed Lemme for McGill Office for Science and Society (video with transcript). “The ‘GLP-1’ that adorns the label is misleading, as is the statement that the ingredients have been clinically studied. Yes, they have been studied, but the studies do not back up the claim of reducing cravings and managing weight. The label also mentions that the ingredients are ‘patented bioflavonoids,’ which is meaningless given that the patents have nothing to do with GLP-1. But most importantly, the ‘lemme’ product has not been subjected to any clinical tests that would prove efficacy! If anyone is looking to enrich Kourtney Kardashian’s coffers, then this is the product to buy. But if the search is for an effective weight loss method, it is best to look elsewhere.”

September 18 – Paul Knoepfler posted a “New review of stem cell supplements and pills.” “Stem cell supplements claim to improve your health by impacting your stem cells. My research indicates there are no strong clinical trial data to support such claims. Stem cell supplements pose risks too and they are expensive. As a stem cell biologist, I generally recommend against taking stem cell supplements but consult your physician.”

PREVIOUS NEWS PAGES