May 20th, 2010 by Steve Novella, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion, Research
No Comments »
Two recent acupuncture studies have received some media attention, both purporting to show positive effects. Both studies are also not clinical efficacy trials, so cannot be used to support any claims for efficacy for acupuncture –- although that is how they are often being presented in the media.
These and other studies show the dire need for more trained science journalists or science blogging –- they only make sense when put into a proper context. No media coverage I read bothered to do this. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
May 13th, 2010 by Steve Novella, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion, Research
14 Comments »
On SBM we have documented the many and various ways that science is abused in the pursuit of health (or making money from those who are pursuing health). One such method is to take a new, but reasonable, scientific hypothesis and run with it, long past the current state of the evidence. We see this with the many bogus stem cell therapy clinics that are popping up in parts of the world with lax regulation.
This type of medical pseudoscience is particularly challenging to deal with, because there is a scientific paper trail that seems to support many of the claims of proponents. The claims themselves may have significant plausibility, and parts of the claims may in fact be true. Efforts to educate the public about such treatments are frustrated by the mainstream media’s lazy tendency to discuss every study as if it were the definitive last word on a topic, and to site individual experts as if they represent the consensus of scientific opinion.
Recent claims made for low-dose naltrexone (LDN) fit nicely into this model –- a medical intervention with interesting research, but in a preliminary phase that does not justify clinical use. And yet proponents talk about it as if it’s a medical revolution. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
April 29th, 2010 by Steve Novella, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion, Research
1 Comment »
To be blunt up front –- SBM is not apologetic about the pharmaceutical industry. We get zero funding from any company, and have no ties of any kind to “big pharma.” In today’s world I have to spend time making that clear, because despite the reality critics are free to assume and falsely claim that our message is coming straight from the bowels of hell (a.k.a. the pharmaceutical industry).
We promote science-based medicine and criticize pharmaceutical companies along with everyone else when they place other concerns ahead of scientific validity, or promote bad science, for whatever reason.
It has become fashionable, however, to not only criticize the pharmaceutical industry but to demonize them –- and the term “big pharma” has come to represent this demonization. Cynicism is a cheap imitation of skepticism –- it is the assumption of the worst, without careful thought or any hint of fairness. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
April 1st, 2010 by Steve Novella, M.D. in Better Health Network, News, Opinion, Research
No Comments »
A new study published in PLOS Biology looks at the potential magnitude and effect of publication bias in animal trials. Essentially, the authors conclude that there is a significant file drawer effect –- failure to publish negative studies -– with animal studies and this impacts the translation of animal research to human clinical trials.
SBM is greatly concerned with the technology of medical science. On one level, the methods of individual studies need to be closely analyzed for rigor and bias. But we also go to great pains to dispel the myth that individual studies can tell us much about the practice of medicine.
Reliable conclusions come from interpreting the literature as a whole, and not just individual studies. Further, the whole of the literature is greater than the sum of individual studies –- there are patterns and effects in the literature itself that need to be considered.
One big effect is the file drawer effect, or publication bias –- the tendency to publish positive studies more than negative studies. A study showing that a treatment works or has potential is often seen as doing more for the reputation of a journal and the careers of the scientists than negative studies. So studies with no measurable effect tend to languish unpublished. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
March 27th, 2010 by Steve Novella, M.D. in Better Health Network, News, Opinion, Quackery Exposed, Research
No Comments »
In the Wall Street Journal last week was a particularly bad article by Melinda Beck about acupuncture. While there was token skepticism (by Edzard Ernst, of course, who is the media’s go-to expert for CAM), the article credulously reported the marketing hype of acupuncture proponents.
Toward the end of the article Beck admits that “some critics” claim that acupuncture provides nothing more than a placebo effect, but this was followed by the usual canard:
“I don’t see any disconnect between how acupuncture works and how a placebo works,” says radiologist Vitaly Napadow at the Martinos center. “The body knows how to heal itself. That’s what a placebo does, too.”
That is a bold claim, and very common among CAM proponents, especially acupuncturists. As the data increasingly shows that acupuncture (and other implausible treatments) provides no benefit beyond placebo, we hear the special pleading that placebos work also.
But is that true? It turns out there is a literature on the placebo effect itself, and the evidence suggests that placebos generally do not work. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
