A Cure for Diabetes! Too bad it's a Homeopathic One.

The latest load of bullshit from the UK Homeopathy Association:

I was diagnosed with diabetes Type II in 2006. I was put on Mertformin 500mg three times a day AND Gliclazide 80mg twice a day. However from January 2010, I no longer take any medication. My latest blood test done by my doctor, shows my HbA1c at 6.4 and my fasting blood sugar at 6.2.

My cholesterol levels have dropped to the lowest in 4 years. Total Serum Cholesterol 2.8, triglycerides 1.0 !!!!

I have now officially be taken off ALL conventional medications by my doctors (even though I had done this myself since Jan 2010)

Ok. I'm not a doctor and on the surface those medical terms sound rather convincing, but, the sceptic should know better. One of two things is going on here 1) he's being honest with this statement but their exists an explanation other than homeopathy. 2) He's being purposefully deceptive and using medical jargon to impress and entice. I'm inclined to go with 2 as the junk medicine world seems to be about duping the gullible out of hard-earned money.

As for the decision to stop using conventional (the stuff that's more likely to work) medication without doctor consent. Do I really need to point out how fucking stupid that is? Not the type of behaviour any responsible health practitioner would encourage though this is a homeopath we are talking about.

Of course, this all ignores the lack of evidence (as far as I know and please correct me if I'm wrong) in regards to a cure of type II diabetes.

Homeopathy and Depression: A Dangerous Mix

I'm on the UK Homeopathy's mailing list. (Hey, it's a good way to keep up with what's going on in the world of woo). They are touting treatment for depression. The e-mail starts off well enough. Discusses the dangerous and hardship of depression. Then we get to the testimony:

Here is what one of my patients had to say:

I recently suffered from really bad anxiety followed by depression. I couldn't work out why I was going through this bad patch as I'm a jolly person and never let stress get the better of me. I went to see my GP and he put me on depression tablets, however I wanted something that cured me and not something that would eliminate it temporarily. I decided to try homoeopathic remedy, so I searched on the Internet and came across Mohamed's website, furthermore, he was the cheapest in comparison to other sites. I managed to see him straight away. When I had my first consultation, I was shaking with nerves particularly my leg. I couldn't sleep for 3 weeks due to panic attacks and fear. The first night I took homoeopathic remedy I slept throughout the night, I was so grateful to Mohamed that I actually had a decent night sleep. Over time I grew stronger and could face going to work and outdoors. Mohamed has been so supportive throughout, I would contact him by email or phone about my progress. What was so comforting, he was there for me when I needed. I'm now a big fan of homoeopathic remedies and have recommended it to my friends. So give it a go, you have nothing to lose, the remedies are natural with no side effects. I would also like to add, Mohamed is a very good counsellor, I always felt so confident and refreshed after our sessions.'

The ravings of one person is not satisfactory evidence. I've heard people say reflexology works but we know that isn't the case. Where are the links to studies proving the effectiveness of homeopathy? Testing, analysis, etc. It's not there because it doesn't exist. You also have the standard bashing of traditional medicines. A "temporary" fix.

It bothers me to think of the people who will receive this e-mail and be convinced to give up their anti-depressants and turn to an alternative treatment with homeopathy. Considering the dangers of untreated depression, homeopathic practitioners are being downright irresponsible by touting a treatment that may do nothing to prevent the depression from worsening.

Sky News: Calls to regulate alternative medicine

Sky News: Calls to regulate alternative medicine

Alternative medicine needs to be regulated, we can't let this happen again:

There are calls for tighter regulation of the alternative medicine industry after a woman's agonising death.

Penelope Dingle died in August 2005 after initially refusing cancer surgery, opting to be treated with alternative remedies instead.

Dingle was treated for rectal cancer by a homeopath who has been blasted by a coroner investigating the case, saying she was an 'incompetent health professional'.

The Cancer Council says the case highlights the desperation of some cancer sufferers.

Spiritual Or Religious?

Spiritual Or Religious?

Tanveer Ahmed has an article on the demand for alternative medicine. I'll highlight the paragraph that concerns me:

Most of my patients - the vast majority - will not admit to being religious. Most will, however, describe themselves as being ''spiritual''. When pressed on the nature of this spirituality, the dominant theme is being free from any institutional or political authority.

By this reckoning, the notion of being spiritual is removed from the taint of power. It is then free to pick up any lost forms of spirituality or any of the new varieties that seem to regularly spring up. In essence, it is a consumerist approach to religion.

The past decade has seen vicious academic assaults on organised religion. It is already on the canvas in secular Western democracies, and the likes of the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and the dilettante journalist Christopher Hitchens have continued to intellectually beat it to a pulp.

Religion now hangs by certain proofs and demonstrables, such as the literal acceptance of texts, by which no great religion can ever flourish. Narrowing the definition of religion is increasing its frailty. It is being identified with its most extreme forms. Pushing religion out of the public sphere in the name of rationality has given more room to world views or practices that trivialise the ''felt life'' of human consciousness.

One arena of growth that I see as a doctor is the phenomenal increase in the use of alternative therapies. Estimates on the size of the market vary from $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year.

A survey in 2008 by Cardinal Health found 74 per cent of us had used a vitamin, mineral or herbal supplement in the past year. Companies like Blackmores are expanding around the globe.

Much of the time, the use of vitamins or supplements is unwarranted in healthy people. More often than not, the body will merely expel it. But this does not deter consumers, suggesting rationality has little to do with its use.

The fact many of the treatments have links with ancient Chinese or ayurvedic traditions of the subcontinent only increase its spiritual appeal to the Western consumer.

A session at a recent GP conference highlighted that most patients are concerned with health management and ''wellness'', suggesting there was a growing need to integrate the reality of alternative therapies into the business of being a medical doctor. This is driven by the consumer. It does not come from new developments in knowledge. Many GPs now advertise their credentials in alternative medicine.

While patients might be fleeing the rational reductionism of medicine and its apparent indifference to life's mysteries, organised religion appears to concentrate exclusively on the unknown. In alternative therapies, people have discovered a compromise. They attract patients disaffected by conventional medicine as well as those dissatisfied by religion's solutions.

Alternative therapies are not confined by the limits of testable knowledge, making their potential power of explanation enormous, and leaving patients thinking their troubles have real spiritual significance.

For example, a naturopath will diagnose problems with a mix of genuine biological and physiological terminology, adopting a sense of medical authority. But the problems will be addressed with questionable, untested treatments such as homeopathy or herbal products.

Patients are left reassured they are not dealing with a quack, but retain a link with nature and the spirit. They are told their condition is unique to them and the power to heal exists inside their own bodies.

The sector's influence is only likely to increase when medicine does not pretend to have a cure for a chronic illness. Medicine can only offer ''disease management'', an unsatisfying outcome for many patients.

Humans are not content with essentially material descriptions of reality, but want to know the nature of reality, whether there is meaning in it. We are fundamentally meaning-seeking machines.

As the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said: "Without the transcendent we shall find ourselves unable, sooner or later, to make any sense of the full range of human self-awareness".

A growing number of health and dietary practices seem to be replacing the more profound philosophical and ethical traditions inherent in the major religions. It is unlikely to cure significant illnesses, but it remains to be seen whether the transcendence that religious leaders espouse can be found in such behaviours.

Medical doctors should not be considering alternative therapies, regardless of what the consumer wants. The patient can be wrong. Any responsible doctor would not use untested treatments on their patients, no matter how badly they believe it will work.

Atheist worldview is unintelligible | INFORUM | Fargo, ND

Atheist worldview is unintelligible | INFORUM | Fargo, ND

I'm not sure now to make sense of this quote:

An atheist cannot really tell you what is true, what is real or what is right or wrong. His worldview just doesn’t allow it.

Has this person never looked out how we form our arguments? We do it through the observation of evidence? A good atheist/sceptic wouldn't even make the claim to know the truth because we can never know with certainty, claiming to know the truth is foolish as the evidence could change tomorrow. The evidence allows us to have a pretty good guess, which is not a weakness.

Homeopathy will not be banned by NHS despite critical report - Telegraph

Homeopathy will not be banned by NHS despite critical report - Telegraph

Bad news of the UK. Quackery has won out over reason and science, for now.

From Richard Alleyne:

Health minister Anne Milton said complementary and alternative medicine "has a long tradition" and very vocal people both in favour of it and against it.
A report by a group of MPs said homeopathic medicine should no longer be funded on the NHS and called for a ban on the medicines carrying medical claims on their labels.

The Commons Science and Technology Committee said there is no evidence the drugs are any more effective than a placebo - the same as taking a sugar or dummy pill and believing it works.

Last month, doctors attending the British Medical Association (BMA) annual conference backed this view, saying homeopathic remedies should be banned on the NHS and taken off pharmacy shelves where they are sold as medicines.

The treatment was described as "nonsense on stilts" and that patients would be better off buying bottled water.
Ms Milton said the Government welcomed the MPs' report but "remain of the view that the local National Health Service and clinicians are best placed to make decisions on what treatment is appropriate for their patients".

These decisions should take account of safety, and clinical and cost effectiveness, she said, adding that the Government remained committed to providing good-quality information on the treatments.

Homeopathy, which dates back 200-years, has been funded on the NHS since the service's inception in 1948.
It differs from herbal medicine in that it relies on substances being diluted many times, something the MPs said could not be scientifically proved to work.
There are four homeopathic hospitals in the UK, in London, Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow.

Estimates on how much the NHS spends on homeopathy vary, with the Society of Homeopaths putting the figure at £4 million a year including the cost of running hospitals.

Former Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, who was a member of the Science and Technology Committee when it published its report, said: "This is not a good start for the new Health Secretary when it comes to evidence-based policy.

"How does the Government justify allowing treatments that do not work to be provided by the NHS in the name of choice, when it allows medicines which do work to be banned from NHS use?"

The Great Beyond: Homeopathic treatment works! (But not in a good way.)

The Great Beyond: Homeopathic treatment works! (But not in a good way.)

Good news for proponents of alternative medicine: a paper published in a prestigious medical journal appears to demonstrate that a homeopathic remedy really does have a pretty powerful biological effect. Unfortunately, this effect is to rob some users of their sense of smell.

Concerns that popular ‘homeopathic’ cold remedy zinc gluconate can cause a loss of smell have been around for a while. Now an analysis by two San Diego researchers shows these concerns may be well founded.

Terence Davidson and Wendy Smith, of the University of California, San Diego, looked at a set of nine criteria* for establishing a causal relationship and concluded that zinc nasal therapy can cause smell loss (anosmia). Their paper also details 25 patients who turned up at their Nasal Dysfunction Clinic complaining of smell loss after use of homeopathic zinc gel – which, unusually for a homeopathic treatment, does have an active ingredient.

They are now calling on the Food and Drug Administration to step up and do something.

“Given the rapid expansion of the homeopathic drug market into a multimillion-dollar industry, it is clear that more stringent FDA regulation is needed to monitor the safety of these popular remedies,” they write in Archives of Otolaryngology.

“... Protecting our patients from the potential risks of intranasal zinc medications and other homeopathic drugs, especially ones with limited proven therapeutic benefit, should be a high priority of the FDA.”

Last year the FDA called for three specific zinc nasal sprays to be pulled from the market amid concerns over asnosmia. It said then it had received over 130 reports of smell loss associated with such products, which continue to be widely available.

Davidson and Smith’s paper notes that evidence zinc nasal sprays help with colds is “questionable”.

YouTube - Homeopathy Debunked Compilation

YouTube - Homeopathy Debunked Compilation

It's water for fuck sakes!

Homeopathy Course Under Review

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10654034

From The New Zealand Herald:

Victoria University is distancing itself from a course it is offering in the controversial alternative medicine homeopathy.

The course "Homoeopathy: increasing your health awareness" is being offered through its Community Continuing Education programme in a one-off two hour lecture.

The lecture by Art Buehler, a senior religious studies lecturer advertises it will teach participants about the "internationally recognised, scientific medical system"

I'm *sure* that as a religious studieds lecturer, Buehler is well versed in what is and is not science. Or more likely, he's full of woo and crap.

Victoria University's humanities faculty pro-vice chancellor Professor Deborah Willis told the Dominion Post that the lecture was not an approved course saying "that the lecture should have been advertised with more careful wording".

She said they were reviewing whether the lecture would go forward in its current form.

Homeopathy is an alternative theory of medicine which advocates treating patients with heavily diluted amounts of substances which would cause similar symptoms in a healthy person.

Medical practitioners and scientists are critical of the technique and say it has no scientific basis.

I have a suggestion for how they can reword the advertisement. Homeopathy: Come and learn how to con gullible fools out of their hard earned money through the use of dilutting water and using ideas that go against everything science has to say!

Great Idea

http://blogs.forbes.com/sciencebiz/2010/06/save-taxpayer-eliminate-alternative-medicine-research/

From Steven Salzberg:

This past week, President Obama called on all federal agencies to voluntarily propose budget cuts of 5%. Well, Mr. President, you might be surprised to learn that there's a way for you that cut the National Institutes of Health budget without hurting biomedical research. In fact, it will help.

Here's my proposal: save over $240 million per year in the NIH budget by cutting all funding for the two centers that fund alternative medicine research--the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and the Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine (OCCAM). Both of them exist primarily to promote pseudoscience. For the current year, NCCAM’s budget is $128.8 million, an amount that has rapidly grown from $2 million in 1992, despite the fact that not a single “alternative” therapy supported by NCCAM has proven beneficial to health. OCCAM’s budget was $121 million in 2008 (the latest I could find) and presumably higher in 2010. That’s over $240M, not counting money these programs got from the stimulus package (and yes, they did get some stimulus funding).

These two organizations use our tax dollars – and take money away from real biomedical research – to support some of the most laughable pseudoscience that you can find. To take just one example, NCCAM has spent $3.1 million supporting studies of Reiki, an “energy healing” method. Energy healing is based on the unsupported claim that the human body is surrounded by an energy field, and that Reiki practitioners can manipulate this field to improve someone's health. Not surprisingly, the $3.1 million has so far failed to produce any evidence that Reiki works. But because there was never any evidence in the first place, we should never have spent precious research dollars looking into it.

In addition to funding pseudoscience, NCCAM also “educates” the public about alternative medicine. I put “educate” in quotes because much of what NCCAM has on its website is misinformation, which serves to mis-educate rather than to inform. For one example (and there are many), under homeopathy the website states that

“homeopathy is used for wellness and prevention and to treat many diseases and conditions.”

Note how carefully this is worded: homeopathy is "used for prevention", from which one might easily infer that homeopathy is effective. It is not.

NCCAM’s homeopathy page goes on to state that

“most analyses have concluded that there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition; although, some studies have reported positive findings.”

Again, note the careful wording of that last phrase: strictly speaking, it is true, but let me state it a bit more accurately: “some poorly designed, poorly controlled studies with small patient groups, published in low-quality journals, have reported positive findings.”

Homeopathy is based on principals that scientists know to be false: for example, homeopaths believe that an active ingredient is stronger if there is less of it in a solution. In fact, the opposite is true. They also believe that solutions can be diluted infinitely and still retain their effectiveness. Even NCCAM admits that “its [homeopathy's] key concepts are not consistent with the current understanding of science, particularly chemistry and physics.” So why does NCCAM insist on maintaining misleading information on its website?

Getting rid of NCCAM and OCCAM won’t be easy. These “alt.med” agencies have grown at the direct behest of the U.S. Congress, particularly Sen. Tom Harkin, who is woefully misguided where science is concerned. (This despite the fact that he's a big supporter of NIH. But this doesn't mean he should get a pass when he promotes pseudoscience.) Back in 1998, when previous NIH Director Harold Varmus tried to impose more scientific standards on the Office of Alternative Medicine, Harkin retaliated by elevating it to a Center (thus creating NCCAM) and dramatically increasing its budget. And just a year ago he scolded NCCAM because too many of the studies it funded were “disproving things rather than seeking out and approving” them. As Kimball Atwood pointed out, this comment illustrates rather starkly how that Sen. Harkin doesn't care what the science shows. Sen. Harkin, if the evidence says it doesn’t work, then it doesn’t.

I proposed eliminating NCCAM in Obama’s “Citizen’s Briefing Book” in early 2009, and it received thousands of positive votes, thanks in part to a boost from fellow blogger P.Z. Myers. My proposal was reported by the Washington Post too. But it was also subject to a broad attack by proponents of the supplement industry, who sent out a web alert to their minions and did their best to vote it down. Despite their efforts, the net vote was strongly positive. But like most (or all) of the suggestions in the Briefing Book, my proposal went nowhere.

For more details, see one of my previous blog posts on this proposal, or take a look at Steven Novella’s comments, or at David Gorski’s excellent argument against NCCAM here and here. I also liked the recent blog post by Barbara Drescher.

So, to Francis Collins (Director of NIH) and Kathleen Sibelius (Secretary of Health and Human Services, in which NIH resides), there you have it: an easy way to cut $250 million from the NIH budget. I know the total NIH budget is $30 billion, and this is only about 1%, but if you need suggestions for the other 4%, let me know.

9/11 Truthers Go Away

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100617/NEWS03/6170360/1012/NEWS11/Hansen-For-9/11-skeptics-case-is-far-from-settled


From Marc Hansen:

On Tuesday night, Sean Michalek drove from Victor to Adel for the monthly 911 Truth of Central Iowa meeting.

The trek west took 105 minutes, but so what? Michalek, 64, would have driven nine hours to commune and commiserate with other Iowans who believe the official story of Sept. 11, 2001, is a big fat lie.

"It's the only game in Iowa," he said.

The only game, he meant, for people who think 9/11 is the least examined tragedy in American history.

According to 911truth.org, the Adel group has company. Grass-roots organizers also exist in Cedar Falls, Davenport and Indianola.

That said, going on nine years after the attack on the United States, the 9/11 truthers are still playing small ball. The group, for the most part, is still more sect than mainline denomination.

Though 15 people showed up for the June meeting at the Adel Public Library, the attendees are convinced the movement is gaining strength and that someday the conspiracy theory will become an accepted fact.

James Hufferd, a former junior college teacher with a Ph.D., has been calling these monthly meetings for almost three years. When they have a speaker, they draw a decent crowd. In April, theologian and author David Ray Griffin filled a 300-seat auditorium at Drake.

On this night, Dennis Scar, 60, rolled in from his farm near Earlham. Lin Cornelison, 59, traveled from Creston. Angela Bassett, 38, came from Urbandale. Scott Hartung, 51, Kent Harkrader, 45, and John Frankling, 35, are from Des Moines.

Spread out on a table was a small video library. Dave Scar, 58, of Woodward, said he's made 11,000 copies of various titles. Simply ask and ye shall receive.

Beginners, Scar said, might want to begin with "Loose Change" then work their way to "Zero: 9/11" or "911 in Plane Site" or "Blueprint for Truth" or "9/11 Mysteries."

Most members of the group seem to believe the attack was an inside job that gave the United States an excuse to go to war. And if you disagree, it's only because you haven't taken the time to study the evidence or you've fallen under the sway of the lazy, corrupt corporate media.

If you want to debate the truthers, come prepared. Right or wrong, they've looked into this a lot more than the rest of us.

Michalek, a retired teacher, probation officer, truck driver, farmer and military veteran, said he lies in bed wondering how he can make people understand that, whatever happened, 9/11 cries out for further investigation.

"I wake up at 3 in the morning," he said, "asking myself: How can I better reach people? How can I change minds? For me it was easy. I knew the government lied to me about Vietnam, because I was there."

In Tuesday's session, the truthers ate pizza and watched a film of scientist Kevin Ryan speaking at a college in Vermont. Ryan was fired from his lab director job after challenging government findings that burning jet fuel weakened the steel beams supporting the World Trade Center towers.

Ryan's laboratory said he was axed for making his opinions sound like those of his employer. The Adel crowd believes he was fired for telling the truth.

Before they watched the video, "The Emerging Science Around the 9/11 WTC Destruction," Hufferd warned the group. It's a little technical.

A little technical? Ryan stood behind the lectern and talked about nanothermite and red/gray chips and methyl ketone something or other.

The video was less about juicy tidbits and dark scenarios and more about science and how the collapse of the Trade Center showed all the characteristics of a staged demolition event.

The truthers watched the film as if it were the final episode of "Law & Order." In Ryan's Q&A session, there was some sexy stuff about gangsters and FBI moles and how the conspiracy might go back further than people think.

When the film was over, the group members talked about what they'd learned: "I hadn't heard two people were killed in the clean-up," one person said.

Another wondered how John O'Neal really died. John O'Neal? I looked it up later. He was a counterterrorism guru who got fed up, quit the FBI and became head of security at the World Trade Center. Two weeks later, he died in the attack.

All their curiosity doesn't make the truthers popular. In fact, it rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

Even loved ones sometimes wonder what went wrong. Frankling, a carpenter, said his mother isn't buying what he's selling. "She told me, 'I raised you better than that,' " he said with a smile.

Most people, somebody else added, don't want to believe the United States would murder 3,000 of its own citizens. Truthwise, there definitely is that.

Homeopaths Without Borders

I was doing research into homeopathy when I came across Homeopaths Without Borders. (http://www.homeopathswithoutborders-na.org/). An organization who's stated goal is to:

Provide humanitarian aid, homeopathic treatment and education by serving as partners with communities in need.

The organization's mission would be wonderful, if it weren't for their use of the quack science of homeopathy. In insisting that such treatment is given to those indeed they may be interfering in the work of real medical professionals. An individual who has been convinced that he has been cured thanks to a homeopathic remedy may not seek needed treatment from a doctor.

The organization is currently in Haiti. The country needs aid, no doubt. However, aid should not come with false hope and woo.

Vaccines and Autism

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/great-MMR-autism-hoax/article-2258599-detail/article.html

From Simon Perry:

If you've not vaccinated your child against MMR as a result of the media outcry, read on.

It started with a class action lawsuit.

A number of parents, convinced that their children's autism had been caused by the MMR vaccine, decided to sue the vaccine's manufacturer.

But the parents had one problem: their claim of a link between MMR and autism was based upon nothing but intuition. The lawyers needed scientific research that demonstrated a link.

And who better to provide that research than Dr Andrew Wakefield?

Wakefield wouldn't seem to be an obvious choice, given that he did not have the necessary paediatric qualifications, but one thing Wakefield did possess was bias in their favour.

After all, he was the inventor of an alternative vaccine for the measles virus.

In total, Wakefield was paid more than £435,000 by Legal Aid to provide evidence to the court, according to the results of a Freedom of Information request.

Wakefield's team dealt with 12 children between the ages of three and 10.

His research involved sedating them and subjecting them to ileocolonoscopy, an endoscopic examination of the large bowel and part of the small bowel, which included taking a biopsy from their small intestine.

It also involved lumbar puncture, commonly known as a spinal tap.

To discover if the symptoms found were correlated with the MMR vaccine, Wakefield's team simply asked the parents and physicians if the onset of the symptoms occurred soon after the child was given the vaccine.

But the first stage was to find children to assess. This can be one of the trickiest bits of getting the science right, because the way that your sample group is selected can easily introduce bias in your results, even if you are extremely careful to avoid it.

By looking for children whose parents already blamed their child's symptoms on the MMR vaccine, it appears Wakefield was guaranteed an outcome that would please the legal team.

Wakefield's paper claimed that the children had been consecutively referred to the Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology with a history of a pervasive developmental disorder and intestinal symptoms.

We later found out that Wakefield had been actively involved in getting these children referred.

In fact, some of the children had been actively recruited through anti-MMR campaign groups, and most of the parents were clients and contacts of the very lawyer who commissioned Wakefield with an aim to "produce unassailable evidence in court so as to convince a court that these vaccines are dangerous".

One parent was even the managing director of the company set up to sell Wakefield's alternative vaccine.

The results were as predictable as an election poll that only polled members of, say, the Green Party, and equally inaccurate in describing reality.

Now you can criticise me for being judgemental if you like, but if you wish to stick a needle into a three-year-old's spine and then force something large and uncomfortable into their anus then you'd better have a very good reason for doing so.

Producing dodgy research for a lawsuit is not, in my opinion, reason enough.

While the risks involved in colonoscopy are small, they certainly exist.

In December, 2007, the Daily Mail reported that in a similar procedure that followed the initial "research", a 14-year-old boy had a similar unnecessary procedure and endured multiple organ failure after his bowel was perforated in 12 places.

Wakefield managed to get his paper published in The Lancet in February, 1998.

However, the paper had certain critical elements missing.

It didn't mention the conflicts of interest that would have caused his paper to be rejected. It didn't mention how the children had been selected. After suggestions that the process had been biased, Wakefield responded in a published letter that the children had been referred through the normal channels – a statement described by the GMC as "dishonest and irresponsible".

At the time the paper was published, nobody knew about what was going on behind the scenes. Even if this research had been conducted honestly, it still would not tell us anything useful about the MMR vaccine.

If you take 12 patients who were referred to a ward for specific symptoms, then you really shouldn't be surprised if you find out that many of them have those symptoms.

You also shouldn't be too surprised if they'd also had the MMR vaccine when, in 1996, 96% of children had received it.

The evidence consisted of no more than eight anecdotes from a possible 12. This paper was effectively worthless.

There was never, at any point in this hoax, a single point in time where it would have been reasonable to believe it to be likely that there was a connection between MMR and autism, yet this did not stop newspapers repeating the story and misinterpreting the evidence.

Possibly as a direct result of the media outcry following Wakefield's flawed research, other scientists were motivated to find out if there was a genuine link.

And in contrast to Wakefield, they managed to do it without putting a single piece of medical equipment up a child's bottom.

In November, 2002, Madsen, Hviid, Vestergaard et al compared levels of autism in children who had received the MMR jab against those who hadn't.

Instead of Wakefield's 12 children, this study used 537,303.

And instead of selecting them specifically to prove the outcome they hoped for, they used every child born in Denmark from 1991 through 1998.

There was no difference in the rates of autism in the two groups.

The authors quite reasonably concluded "This study provides strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR vaccination causes autism".

This was by no means the only study. In 2008, a Cochrane review looked at 31 separate studies and concluded that "no credible evidence of an involvement of MMR with either autism or Crohn's disease was found."

In 1996, 92% of children were vaccinated with MMR. In 2002, it was down to just 84%. And in 2006 – more than three years after the Danish study of 537,303 children was published and two years after Brian Deer uncovered the flaws at the heart of Wakefield's 12 case studies – MMR coverage at 24 months was just 85%.

In 2006, measles came back to the UK.

In 2005, we had just 77 cases. In 2006, there were 449 before April. One child died. The mumps epidemic of 2005 infected 56,390 people.

There is only one way to prevent future epidemics. Vaccinate your children.

Brian Deer, the investigative journalist who exposed Wakefield's research, will be speaking at Leicester Skeptics in the Pub on July 15.

It starts at 7:30pm in Square Bar on Hotel Street, Leicester.

Testosterone Replacement Therapy

http://www.nationalpost.com/life/health/fast+with+quick+treatments+testosterone+skeptics+urge/3127523/story.html

Middle-aged men sit around looking forlorn, while their shadows appear to be having all the fun. The men are moody, they have low libido, and they lack energy.

The scene is from an ad running during the US National Basketball Association playoffs sponsored by Solvay Pharmaceuticals, which makes AndroGel, a prescription ointment for men with low testosterone. The ads direct viewers to a Web site called "Is It Low T?" -- isitlowt.com -- and urge them to discuss the symptoms and others with their doctors.

But is that good advice?

While experts welcome a public discussion of the ailments of middle-aged men with "Low T," they say that testosterone replacement therapy isn't necessarily the solution for these problems. The symptoms described in the ads occur in other diseases, they note, and could also be chalked up to plain old aging, or "male menopause."

According to a review in the June issue of the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin, testosterone replacement therapy is questionable because it has risks, its efficacy is uncertain, and there's no strong agreement about whether low testosterone is really a disease in older age.

"We're skeptical about this," said Dr. Ike Iheanacho, the journal's editor. "You may have men who have symptoms who have low testosterone levels, but in our view it doesn't add up convincingly to an undoubted medical condition."

Iheanacho said that men do tend to produce less testosterone as they age, but it's not inevitable, and even if it does happen it doesn't necessarily produce symptoms. Half of all men 80 years and older produce normal levels of testosterone, he said.

University of Washington professor Dr. Alvin Matsumoto said that the condition does exist, but that the symptoms should be carefully evaluated along with a series of tests for testosterone levels.

"There does need to be an increased awareness of true clinical hypogonadism," he said, using the clinical term for low testosterone. "I think a lot of people are missed."

But the campaign "is casting a wider net than necessarily needs to be cast," added Matsumoto, who co-authored the Endocrine Society's just-revised guidelines on sex hormone treatment. "The thing I'm a little worried about is that there will be a lot of people out there who will be treated inappropriately."

Iheanacho and Matsumoto said separately that the symptoms described in the campaign are "nonspecific," and could be linked to diabetes, circulation problems, or depression, as well as aging. The Low T site does say that the problem is more common in diabetics and the overweight.

"If someone is low in energy and is 65, that might be entirely compatible with his general life and -- let's face it -- decline," Iheanacho said. "It would be entirely normal."

The endocrine group's guidelines, which appear in the June issue of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, say doctors should only make a diagnosis of low testosterone "in men with consistent symptoms and signs and unequivocally low serum testosterone levels."

The group recommends against screening the general population. The guidelines do call for the use of testosterone therapy - which comes in patches, pellets, and tablets -- in many cases. It could be prescribed, for instance, for men with erectile dysfunction or loss of libido, provided that other underlying causes and therapies are evaluated.

The treatment isn't without peril. The Endocrine Society said it's not recommended for men with prostate cancer or for African-American men with fathers, brothers, or children with prostate cancer. In 2009, the Food and Drug Administration required that testosterone gels be labeled with a prominent warning after repeated reports that young children showed signs of early puberty after being exposed to it, typically through skin contact with their fathers.

According to Solvay's Web site, a man's level of testosterone is considered low when it goes below 300 nanograms per deciliter of blood. But Matsumoto said that a single test won't suffice, because "30% of the time tests are normal after you repeat them."

Solvay says that low testosterone affects 13 million men in the U.S. over age 45. According to the FDA, prescriptions for testosterone gel nearly doubled between 2002 and 2008. AndroGel is the most popular gel, with 1.7 million prescriptions filled in 2007, according to the FDA. Matsumoto said the gel is expensive, but is covered by insurance more often than not.

The ad campaign isn't meant to drive sales of AndroGel, said Neil Hirsch, a spokesman for Solvay, which coined the phrase "Low T."

"The purpose of the ad is to raise awareness, not any specific treatment option," he said. It helps men "connect the dots between what they may be experiencing themselves so they can have a dialogue with their practitioner."

Iheanacho said a European doctor "would look at you blankly" if you asked about Low T.

"It sounds like a rapper," Matsumoto said.

Homeopathic Medicine is an Oxymoron

http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/05/30/homeopathic-medicine-is-an-oxymoron/

Next week, the British Medical Association may “lobby for homoeopathy to be banned from the UK National Health Service.”

It’s a long overdue move.

Homeopathic medicine is nothing but a placebo that gullible people choose to take. The government shouldn’t be paying for their delusional thinking.

Pratik Kanjilal writes in the Hindustan Times that this would be a foolish move. Here’s just one excerpt from his irresponsible piece:

… homoeopathy is routinely denounced because no one knows how it works. But a physician should be asking a simpler question: does it work for my patient? The doctor’s primary concern is to offer a cure, or at least comfort. Ruminations about its scientific basis come later. Many patients turn to alternative schools when mainstream medicine fails and leaves them facing chronic disability and pain, or the inscrutable mystery of death. Unless homoeopathy is unequivocally proven to be quackery, which is not the case, it is irresponsible of doctors to bar access to it. It smacks of scientific fundamentalism.

It. Is. Quackery. Unequivocal quackery.

Nothing happens to them. Because there’s nothing in those pills.

As if it ought to be the last word, Kanjilal finishes his piece with this:

And by the way, did I mention that Queen Elizabeth II has a personal homeopath?

Wow…. who cares.

I would think the Queen also has a real medical staff to look after her.

This whole article is representative of the homeopathic side: the pills make them feel good, so there must be some science involved.

Strong Words for Homeopathy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/alternativemedicine/7728281/Homeopathy-is-witchcraft-say-doctors.html

Let's hope this message gets through:

"Hundreds of members of the BMA have passed a motion denouncing the use of the alternative medicine, saying taxpayers should not foot the bill for remedies with no scientific basis to support them.

The BMA has previously expressed scepticism about homoeopathy, arguing that the rationing body, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence should examine the evidence base and make a definitive ruling about the use of the remedies in the NHS.

Now, the annual conference of junior doctors has gone further, with a vote overwhelmingly supporting a blanket ban, and an end to all placements for trainee doctors which teach them homeopathic principles.

Dr Tom Dolphin, deputy chairman of the BMA's junior doctors committee in England told the conference: "Homeopathy is witchcraft. It is a disgrace that nestling between the National Hospital for Neurology and Great Ormond Street [in London] there is a National Hospital for Homeopathy which is paid for by the NHS".

The alternative medicine, devised in the 18th century by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann, is based on a theory that substances which cause symptoms in a healthy person can, when vastly diluted, cure the same problems in a sick person.

Proponents say the resulting remedy retains a "memory" of the original ingredient – a concept dismissed by scientists.

Latest figures show 54,000 patients are treated each year at four NHS homeopathic hospitals in London, Glasgow, Bristol and Liverpool, at an estimated cost of £4 million.

A fifth hospital in Tunbridge Wells in Kent was forced to close last year when local NHS funders stopped paying for treatments.

Gordon Lehany, chairman of the BMA's junior doctors committee in Scotland said it was wrong that some junior doctors were spending part of their training rotations in homeopathic hospitals, learning principles which had no place in science.

He told the conference in London last weekend: "At a time when the NHS is struggling for cash we should be focusing on treatments that have proven benefit. If people wish to pay for homoeopathy that's their choice but it shouldn't be paid for on the NHS until there is evidence that it works."

The motion was supported by BMA Chairman Dr Hamish Meldrum, though it will only become official policy of the whole organisation if it is agreed by their full conference next month.

In February a report by MPs said the alternative medicine should not receive state funding.

The Commons science and technology committee also said vials of the remedies should not be allowed to use phrases like "used to treat" in their marketing, as consumers might think there is clinical evidence that they work.

In evidence to the committee, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain said there was no possible reason why such treatments, marketed by an industry worth £40 million in this country, could be effective scientifically.

Advocates of homoeopathy say even if the effect of the remedies is to work as a placebo, they are chosen by thousands of people, and do not carry the risks and side effects of many mainstream medicines.

A survey carried out at England's NHS homeopathic hospitals found 70 per cent of patients said they felt some improvement after undergoing treatment.

Crystal Sumner, chief executive of the British Homeopathic Association (BHA), said attempts to stop the NHS funding alternative medicines ignored the views of the public, especially patients with chronic conditions.

She said: " Homeopathy helps thousands of people who are not helped by conventional care. We don't want it to be a substitute for mainstream care, but when people are thinking about making cuts to funding, I think they need to consider public satisfaction, and see that homoeopathy has a place in medicine."

She said junior doctors' calls for an end to any training placements based in homeopathic hospitals ignored the lessons alternative medicine could provide, in terms of how to diagnose patients.

Estimates on how much the NHS spends on homoeopathy vary. The BHA says the NHS spends about £4 million a year on homeopathic services, although the Department of Health says spending on the medicines themselves is just £152,000 a year.

Two weeks ago, a charity founded by the Prince of Wales to promotes alternative medicines announced plans to shut down, days after a former senior official was arrested on suspicion of fraud and money laundering.

The Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health said its plans to close had been brought forward as a result of a fraud investigation at the charity.

George Gray, a former chief executive of the organisation, and his wife Gillian were arrested by Scotland Yard officers last month in an early-morning raid on their home in North London".

Homeopathy is a massive waste of taxpayer money and that talk about it being better than mainstream medicine is your typical, "we can't trust big-bad pharma" bullshit.

Nature Doesn't Always Equal Good

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/05/naturopathic-medicine-be-aware-of-what-you-eat.aspx

Time to start moving away from this idea that naturopathic medicine is always a viable alternative to tried and true methods:

"Naturopathic Medicine Week is taking place from May 3rd to the 9th, and one of its aims is to promote the use of so-called "natural" medicines. Naturopathic products have gained a huge market in Canada and the US during the past decade. In a survey published by Health Canada in 2005, seven in ten Canadians reported that they have used natural health products; of this group, 38% reported that they have done so on a daily basis.

A study by the Canadian Health Food Association and Statistics Canada in 2007 showed that Canadians spend $3.6 billion annually on natural health products. But are we really getting what we paid for?

According to the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine (CCNM), naturopathic medicine is a system of primary health care that uses natural, vitalistic, and holistic methods and substances to support and stimulate the body's "inherent self-healing processes."
Naturopathic practitioners are trained in a variety of complementary/alternative therapies, such as herbal medicine,
homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine, nutrition, as well as some forms of manual manipulation and lifestyle counseling.

Naturopathic medicine may sound appealing to the growing number of people interested in developing a more natural way of living. The promise of more gentle medicines with few if any side effects is a compelling one, especially for people dealing with chronic illness. However, it is important to note that not every plant in nature is gentle and harmless.

Many compounds found in plants are toxic, even in small doses. One herbal medication, Laetrile, an unproven cancer cure obtained from crushed apricot pits, contains large quantities of cyanide. Siberian ginseng, which is commonly prescribed as an "immune booster", contains male-hormone like substances, which could cause hormonal imbalances and liver problems. Any substance that can affect the body positively also has the potential to harm the body, and calling something
"natural" misleads the consumer into believing it is also safe.

A potentially lethal danger exists when mixing naturopathic substances with medically prescribed drugs. Most physicians are uninformed about which natural compound their patient is taking, leaving them unaware of how it may interact with other medications. In the past year both B.C. and Ontario naturopaths received permission from their provincial governments to prescribe mainstream medications, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, opiates and anti-biotics.

After arguing against the use of these medications in the past, how can naturopaths argue that they should have prescribing rights for the same medications?

Patients must be better equipped to choose and distinguish between conventional medicine and non-evidence based alternatives. The widespread use of the term "alternative medicine" gives many people the impression that it is a valid alternative to conventional medicine, but this is very misleading. Most of the therapies that are labeled "alternative" or "complementary" are minimally effective and, in most cases, have no reliable evidence to support them. They are not
alternatives: they were abandoned by modern medicine when it was discovered that they did not work.

In contrast to conventional medicines, the mechanism through which a drug works in the majority of the naturopathic compounds is not clear. Claims about the dosage, application, timing, interactions, or efficacy of the ingredients are vague and, for the most part, uncertain and unpredictable. These and other issues surrounding naturopathic practice, which may jeopardize patient care and integrity of our health care system, are of a concern to many health care professionals and the scientific community.
Only five provinces have legislation governing Naturopaths: British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. There are councils set up in these provinces to regulate the profession and they are charged to do so as per any other provincial regulatory health council.

In B.C. the main problem cannot be clearer. As stated directly in the Health Profession's Act: "The college must not act against a registrant or an applicant for registration solely on the basis that the person practices a therapy that departs from prevailing medical practice unless it can be demonstrated that the therapy poses a greater risk to patient health or safety than does prevailing medical practice" The B.C. government is not concerned if the naturopath's claims of efficacy are unfounded, and they can even cause harm to the patient, as long as it is no more harm than the current standard of
care in mainstream medicine. Risk assessment without taking into account the benefits of a given treatment is a questionable health policy.

The Natural Health Products Directorate (NHPD) is the regulating authority for natural health products, ensuring their safety, efficacy and quality. We have to hold natural health products up to the same standards as conventional drugs and demand that the manufacturers provide solid evidence of the product's effectiveness, not just a safety profile. This is the only way to ensure that the public will not be duped into purchasing ineffective products or abandoning proven mainstream interventions"

Acupuncture and Labour Pains

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=17233

Are you thinking about using acupuncture to reduce labour pains? According to a new study, you’d be best to think again:

“Acupuncture does not appear to help with labour pains, according to new research.
The use of acupuncture to manage pain in labour started in the 1970s, however evidence of its benefits remains unconvincing. Despite this, its use and that of other forms of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) continue to be popular in pregnancy.

UK and Korean researchers carried out a major review of acupuncture trials that have been carried out worldwide. Their study focused on women who received acupuncture alone or those receiving acupuncture and a conventional form of analgesia (painkiller) for pain relief in labour.

According to the researchers, the large variation in the trial results made interpretation difficult. However overall, they found little convincing evidence that women who had acupuncture experienced less labour pains than those who received no pain relief, a conventional analgesia, a placebo or sham acupuncture.

In the trials that compared acupuncture to conventional pain relief, the researchers noted that the women who received acupuncture required less pethidine - a commonly used painkiller - or other forms of analgesia. They said that a possible explanation for this finding is that the women felt that they were already being treated and therefore did not need another form of pain relief.

The researchers pointed out that a previous review, carried out in 2004, appeared to indicate that acupuncture could help with labour pains. However in this latest, larger review, ‘acupuncture did not seem to have any impact on other maternal or fetal outcomes', although it was not ‘associated with harm' either.

"However, there was no convincing evidence that women receiving acupuncture experience less labour pain than those in the control groups. Acupuncture might reduce the use of other forms of pain relief such as pethidine, but the evidence is limited. To summarise, the current evidence does not appear to recommend the use of acupuncture for labour pain," the team said.

Details of these findings are published in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

Commenting on the findings, BJOG editor-in-chief, Prof Philip Steer, noted that ‘pain is a very subjective response'.

"Labour pain can be so intense that the woman feels she would do anything to minimise the sensation of pain. Acupuncture is a drug-free approach and that may explain why some women prefer its use during labour. This research has shown that there were no adverse outcomes to mother and baby for those who had acupuncture to control pain during labour," he said.

He acknowledged that the findings showed that in a ‘very small number of cases', acupuncture may be of help, usually for very short periods of time after treatment. However he said this may be down to a psychological rather than a physiological effect.

"Generally, the consensus is that the evidence does not support its use. In contrast, there is good evidence showing a benefit from emotional support during labour, so we should concentrate our efforts on making sure that all women have the benefit of one-to-one care at this crucial time," Prof Steer added.”

At its’ best it sounds as if acupuncture works well as a placebo.

Colonic Hydrotherapy

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100007943/take-one-sturdy-hosepipe-surely-the-weirdest-alternative-medicine-ever/

Tom Chivers discusses colonic hydrotherapy:

“Bit a propos of nothing, this, but bear with me. Cycling through Islington this afternoon (and feel free to judge me just for typing that phrase) I saw an advert that made me do a double-take. On the front of an otherwise ordinary-looking chemist’s, in foot-high letters underneath an image of a smiling young woman, it said “colonic hydrotherapy”.

Yes: a high street shop cheerfully advertising that, for money, it will stick a hosepipe up your hole and squirt 30 pints of water up there. But in a holistic way, obviously. It is said to cure the usual panoply of ills. I know it’s hardly new – apparently the ancient Egyptians were well into it – but I find the whole idea terrifying.

I can sort of understand the appeal of other alt-med quackery. Homeopathy, in the end, is just taking a couple of harmless tablets and talking to a nice man for three-quarters of an hour. Reflexology and the various other ones, reiki and whatnot, you get a nice massage. Even acupuncture might be quite pleasant, I don’t know.
But “colonic hydrotherapy” sounds like a particularly brutal prison torture. Do people subject themselves to this deliberately? It’s not some sort of dare, or an elaborate hoax I’ve fallen for?

I hardly need add that there’s no evidence that it works, and anyway, it’s based on a fundamentally (so to speak) flawed idea – the colon and lower bowel are pretty good at self-cleaning, and the American Cancer Society says that the evidence “does not support the premise that toxins accumulate on intestinal walls or that toxicity results from poor elimination of waste from the colon”. Worse, it’s not safe – there have been deaths from perforated colons and from amoebic infection.

Of course, a lack of evidence has never stopped people from using weird medicinal techniques before, but it surprises me that the unadorned physical horror of it hasn’t put them off. What next? Holland & Barrett offering to rub chilli in your eye to prevent glaucoma?”

A few more points to add:

“According to the FDA, colonic irrigation systems are Class III devices that cannot be legally marketed except for medically indicated colon cleansing (such as before a radiologic or endocopic examination). No system has been approved for "routine" colon cleansing to promote the general well being of a patient”

(http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/gastro.html).

“Colon therapy has no benefits, and can cause harm. Colonic perforation and electrolyte imbalances can occur. Infection from improperly sterilized equipment (Giardia, C. difficle), and severe cramping can all occur” (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Colonic#Efficacy_2).

Leave it to the believers of quack medicine to think that squirting water up the rear-end is a good idea.

Reflexology: Nothing More than a Foot Rub

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/reflex.html

At a get-together I attended recently I heard a conversation regarding the recommendation of reflexology to deal with a child’s health issues. “It works” was the testimony from one person. Immediately my sceptic warning bells were ringing. “Why not go to a doctor?” I thought. Shortly thereafter, I did some research into reflexology. It took me less than 5 minutes to confirm my suspicions that it is nothing more than alternative medicine quackery.

Here are few things to keep in mind if you ever happen to hear someone speaking on the wonders of reflexology:

“A 2009 systematic review of randomised controlled trials concluded that the latest available evidence does not show convincingly that reflexology is an effective treatment for any medical condition”- (Ernst E (2009). "Is reflexology an effective intervention? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials". Med J Aust 191 (5): 263–6. PMID 19740047.)

“There is no consensus among reflexologists on how reflexology is supposed to work; a unifying theme is the idea that areas on the foot correspond to areas of the body, and that by manipulating these one can improve health through one's qi.” (a b Norman, Laura; Thomas Cowan (1989). The Reflexology Handbook, A Complete Guide. Piatkus. pp. 22, 23. ISBN 0-86188-912-6.)

You would think that practitioners of a credible medical treatment would be able to tell you how their treatment actually works without fighting over how it works.
“Diplomas in reflexology can be attained with as little as six months of home study” (^ "The Open College reflexology diploma course". http://www.opencollege.info/reflexologycourse.html. Retrieved 2007-11-17.)
“Reflexology's claim to manipulate energy (Qi) has been controversial, as there is no scientific evidence for the existence of life energy (Qi), 'crystalline structures,' or 'pathways' in the body” (Barrett, Stephen (2004-09-25). "Reflexology: A close look". Quackwatch. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/reflex.html. Retrieved 2007-10-12.)

If the mother were to take her child to a reflexologist I would not be pointing the blame at those who were speaking highly of reflexologists at the time. No, the ones truly responsible for promoting a medical treatment for which little training is required to administer are the reflexologists themselves. The ones who in the face of studies saying their methods are ineffective continue to say otherwise.

Most people will not conduct research on reflexology. They will be content with listening to the testimony of their friends who have had positive experiences (even if no benefits actually resulted). You are right then to ask, “Why didn’t I speak up?” Well, at that moment my knowledge of reflexology was limited to having heard the word reflexology at that very moment. If it ever comes up again, I’ll be sure to say something. For the health and well-being of a child.