October 26th, 2011 by Toni Brayer, M.D. in Research
No Comments »
If you want to create an outcry of indignation, just inform people that certain screening tests are of no value and do not increase time on this earth. People love the idea that if they do all the right things and get all the medical tests at the right time, they can prevent disease ( ….uh…no, tests don’t prevent anything) or catch cancer early and cure it.
The furor over the lack of benefit for men of the screening Prostate Specific Antigen test (PSA) is still being heard. It seems everyone knows someone who was “saved” by getting a PSA and don’t try to tell me there is evidence to suggest otherwise, dammit!
There is a new report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at EverythingHealth*
October 24th, 2011 by Harriet Hall, M.D. in Research
No Comments »
From a message posted on Facebook:
Is the pill safe? The International Agency for Research on Cancer in a 2007 study made by 21 scientists reported that the pill causes cancer, giving it the highest level of carcinogenicity, the same as cigarettes and asbestos. It also causes stroke, and significantly increases the risk of heart attacks. Several scientific journals have stated that the natural way of regulating births through the Billings Ovulation Method has no side-effects, and is 99.5 % effective.
The Billings Ovulation Method (BOM) is a method of natural family planning where women are taught to recognize when they have ovulated by examining their cervical mucus, allowing them to avoid intercourse during fertile periods or conversely, to have intercourse during fertile periods when pregnancy is desired. We used to call people who used the rhythm method “parents,” but BOM is more reliable than older abstinence methods.
I’m a big fan of oral contraceptives. They contributed to Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
October 3rd, 2011 by Harriet Hall, M.D. in Research
No Comments »
There has been an ongoing debate about placebos on SBM, both in the articles and in the comments. What does it mean that a treatment has been shown to be “no better than placebo?” If our goal is for patients to feel better and they feel better with placebos, why not prescribe them? Do placebos actually do anything useful? What can science tell us about why a patient might report diminished pain after taking an inert sugar pill? The subject is complex and prone to misconceptions. A recent podcast interview offers a breakthrough in understanding.
On her Brain Science Podcast Dr. Ginger Campbell interviewed Dr. Fabrizio Benedetti, a physician and clinical neurophysiologist who is one of the world’s leading researchers on the neurobiology of placebos. A transcript of the interview [PDF] is available on her website for those who prefer reading to listening. The information Dr. Benedetti presents and the expanded remarks by Dr. Campbell after the interview go a long way towards explaining the placebo phenomenon and its consequences for clinical medicine. Dr. Campbell also includes a handy list of references. I’ll try to provide a summary of the main points, but I recommend reading or listening to the original.
A common misconception is that Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
October 2nd, 2011 by HarvardHealth in Research
2 Comments »
Kicking the cigarette habit is one of the best things that smokers can do for themselves. Nicotine replacement products, prescription medications, and counseling can all help. What about the newest tobacco substitute, the electronic cigarette? Despite the appeal of so-called e-cigarettes, we don’t know enough about their safety or effectiveness to give them the green light.
Electronic cigarettes come in a variety of shapes. Some look like cigarettes, pipes, or cigars, while others are disguised as pens or other more socially acceptable items. Whatever their shape, they all are built around a battery-operated heating element, a replaceable cartridge that contains nicotine and other chemicals, and an atomizer that converts the chemicals into an inhalable vapor.
A study published this spring in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine concluded that electronic cigarettes may help smokers quit. Whether they are a safe way to quit is another question—preliminary studies from the FDA, New Zealand, and Greece raise some concerns.
There are three reasons to worry about electronic cigarettes. First, Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Harvard Health Blog*
September 21st, 2011 by Paul Auerbach, M.D. in Research
No Comments »
Once of the major recent advances in trauma care has been the evolution of topical substances that can be applied to wounds in order to limit or stop hemorrhage (bleeding). This is very important in wilderness medicine, because uncontrolled bleeding is a leading cause of death from injuries. When the bleeding site can be approached in such a manner as to stop the bleeding, then something very valuable may possibly be done for the patient.
In article entitled “Comparison of Celox-A, ChitoFlex, WoundStat, and Combat Gauze Hemostatic Agents Versus Standard Gauze Dressing in Control of Hemorrhage in a Swine Model of Penetrating Trauma,” Lanny Littlejohn, MD and colleagues used an animal model of a complex groin injury with a small penetrating wound, followed by completely cutting the femoral artery and vein, to determine whether there was any benefit to one or another hemostatic (stops bleeding) agent in comparison to each other and to standard gauze dressing. To cut to the chase (no pun intended), the results showed that no difference was found among the agents with respect to initial cessation of bleeding, rebleeding, and survival. In this study, WoundStat was inferior with respect to initial cessation of bleeding and survival when compared to Celox-A.
The authors point out how important it is to Read more »
This post, Article Compares Hemostatic Agents: Are There Any Differences?, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Paul Auerbach, M.D..
If you want to create an outcry of indignation, just inform people that certain screening tests are of no value and do not increase time on this earth. People love the idea that if they do all the right things and get all the medical tests at the right time, they can prevent disease ( ….uh…no, tests don’t prevent anything) or catch cancer early and cure it.
