SciBlogs

Archive Health and Medicine

Homeopathy; where reason is diluted until none is left Michael Edmonds Apr 16

6 Comments

Science is a process by which we attempt to explain the natural world around us. A good indication that we have a reasonable explanation for describing a particular phenomenon is that:

1) it is consistently supported by reliable experimental data and observations

2) it has a plausible mechanism

Homeopathy fails on both counts.

While supporters of homeopathy are often quick to point to a few studies where the data appear to show that homeopathy might have some small beneficial effects, they ignore the many studies which show that homeopathy has no benefits beyond that of the placebo effect. A good scientist examines all of the data available and makes his/her decision based on that. If 50 studies were carried out to see if homeopathy had any effect and 10 suggested an effect while 40 did not, there are two possible explanations:

a) Homeopathy does not work and the 10 studies were due to poor methodology or random statistical variation.** (see footnote)

b) Homeopathy does work and the 40 studies were due to poor methodology or (incredibly unlikely) random statistical variation.

If b) were the case then the expectation is that it should be possible to point out what in the methodology was causing the 40 experiments not to reveal it’s effect. This is something I have never seen any advocate of homeopathy attempt. Why do some many studies of homeopathy fail to show anything more than the placebo effect?

Proponents of homeopathy have also failed to propose a plausible mechanism for how it might “work”. Early claims that water (a simple molecule made up of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom) might somehow “remember” the active substance which has been diluted out of existence make no sense. More recently some homeopaths have bandied around terms such as “resonance” and “quantum entanglement”, without any real understanding of what they are really talking about (a common sign of pseudoscience).

Homeopaths claim that water can be embued with therapeutic properties by bringing it into contact with a substance then diluting this substance out of existence. This defies basic principles of chemistry and common sense. To justify such an extraordinary claim, homeopaths need to provide extraordinary evidence to support their claims. So far none has been forthcoming.

*random statistical variation refers to the probability that every now and then an apparently “unlikely” event will occur by chance. For example, if a large group of people were given a coin each and asked to toss it 5 times, the odds are that one or two might throw 5 tails in a row, even though instinctively this might seem ”unlikely” or “non-random”. In the same way, it is possible that once in a while an experiment will give a positive result, when in fact it is just due to a chance variation in the data. This is why experiments tend to be repeated in science – to make sure the first results were “real” and not due to chance.

This article was prompted by a recent complaint against North & South magazine by a homeopath who took umbruge with a North & South article which criticised homeopathy (Siouxsie has written about this here)

Technobabble – a pseudoscience give away Michael Edmonds Apr 06

5 Comments

One of the tricks that purveyors of pseudoscience use to sound “sciency” is to use technobabble (meaningless technical sounding terminology).

(start the first video 55 seconds in)

YouTube Preview Image

Indeed, the amount of technobabble used in pseudoscience readily outperforms the champions of fictional technobabble:

YouTube Preview Image

But then again, I’m comparing fiction with fiction aren’t I?

To quote the second video “It all sounds so real when you don’t think about it.”

 

The Vote – Is it Time to Tax Unhealthy Food? Michael Edmonds Mar 29

6 Comments

This morning I been watching a rerun of “The Vote – Is it Time to Tax Unhealthy Food?”

This show debates an issue, in this case whether it is is time to tax unhealthy food, by having two opposing teams debate the issues. It is an interesting programme but I must say I am a little bit disappointed that the debate focuses largely on rhetoric, with little science and in some cases, inclusion of “facts” that I think were more likely fiction.

For such an important debate, I am disappointed.

At the end of the debate different audiences were polled on their views

The audience started off with 44% in favour of a tax, 44% against and 12% undecided. It ended with 41% in favour, 57% opposed and 1% undecided.

In other fora, there was a slight preference for a tax. On Facebook 55% for a tax, 45% against. On twitter 51% for, 49% against. By text, 52% for a tax, 48% against.

Overall, it came out as 54% of those voting in all fora were for a tax on unhealthy food. An interesting result.

At the moment, my view is that a tax on some high energy, low nutrient, foods would be a good thing. But it would have to be introduced in a simple, transparent manner and with the monies raised going towards improving healthy eating. But I’d be interested in other people’s (reasoned) views. Not that keen on rhetoric and unsubstantiated “facts” though.

TEDMED – We Need Better Drugs – Now. Michael Edmonds Mar 23

No Comments

TED talks often make for interesting listening, even if lately one or two pseudoscientific talks have made it through the selection process – something both Grant and I have previously mentioned.

The following is a recent TED talk by Francis Collins explaining how drugs are made, how they could be made better, and why new drugs are needed.

YouTube Preview Image

This video can also be found on the TED website here. The comments section underneath unfortunately attracts a few of those who believe that all you need to be healthy is to eat well (i.e. vegetarian) and exercise, and that pharmaceutical companies are evil. Though it is nice to see these claims being vigorously countered by those who eat healthy and exercise, yet still need drugs to treat various conditions.

The Dangerous Untruths* used by “Alternative” Medicine – part 1 Michael Edmonds Feb 17

4 Comments

After reading the materials produced by purveyors of, and believers in, “alternative” medicine you start to recognise common untrue statements which are repeated again and again, until they are accepted by believers as undeniable truths. Such beliefs are reinforced when alternative communities close themselves off from opposing views online by banning those who challenge these views from various fora or by running blogs where conflicting comments are blocked.

The two common untruths that I am going to address here are 1) That conventional medicine doesn’t know how drugs works and; 2) That scientists who challenge “alternative” medicine are somehow dupes for the pharmaceutical industry.

Untruth 1 – “But we don’t know how conventional drugs work either”

Those who push “alternative” treatments are unable to explain how they might “work” (beyond of course, stringing together random sciency sounding terms such as quantum entanglement or molecular memory). Consequently it would be really convenient for them if they could say the same thing about conventional medicine. And many “natural” and “alternative medicine supporters will make statements such as “well, we don’t know how conventional medicine works either.” And they are WRONG.

Anyone who has studied medicinal chemistry will know that, for most drugs, how they work is very clearly understood. Large textbooks are written on the subject. Admittedly, there are a tiny percentage of drugs (particularly new ones) where the mechanism is not always clear. But these are in the minority. Of the 39 new drug products approved by the FDA in 2012, only ONE has an unknown mechanism of action, something which will likely change as it undergoes further study.

And as well as large textbooks there are other more populist books which illustrate the ways drugs work.

 

Untruth 2 – “Scientists are the dupes/shills of the pharmaceutical industry”

This is probably the comment which most offends me. When debating with someone who believes in “alternative” medicine this typically comes towards the end when you have successfully countered their other arguments, which probably gives a good indication of the legitimacy of this comment. It is a personal attack, and one I take personally.

I chose to study science because I believed it was the best way to contribute to the improvement of the world around us and because it allows use to better understand the world around us. Many other scientists share these reasons for choosing a career in science, something I have previously written about.

The very suggestion that scientists would support poor data/poor science coming out of pharmaceutical or other companies shows a complete misunderstanding of how most scientists think.** We are interested in understanding how the world around us works – to accept a flawed explanation of this world is anathema to science.

To accuse scientists of making or accepting flawed claims is akin to accusing firefighters of lighting fires rather than putting them out. It makes no sense.

Furthermore, when people talk about the supposed power of Big Pharma, they neglect to consider the billions of dollars earned by those selling alternative medicines. I mean think about it – a small bottle of a homeopathic remedy foften costs more than 10 dollars. 10 dollars for a bottle of water, what’s the mark up on that then? Given that most “alternative” remedy manufacturers do not have to pay for research like pharmaceutical companies, its money for jam.

 

These are just two of the common and dangerous untruths* used by alternative medicine. When I get time I will add to this list, although readers are welcome to suggest other dangerous untruths they have come across.

*I’ve used the term “untruths” because I believe that many supporters of “alternative” medicine simply do not understand that their beliefs are irrational. For others, I suspect the word “lie” would be more appropriate.

** Granted there will always be a few scientists who buckle under the temptations of either funding or fame to pervert science, however, sooner or later they will get caught out by one or more of the majority of honest scientists.

New Drugs approved in 2012 Michael Edmonds Feb 17

3 Comments

According to a recent article in Chemical & Engineering News written by Lisa Jarvis, 2012 was a bountiful year for the pharmaceutical industry, with 39 new products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These include new drug therapies for drug resistant tuberculosis, cystic fibrosis and various forms of cancer. Apart from the benefits to patients that these drugs will provide, one of the most exciting things about these new drugs is that 18 of them work using new mechanisms of action. This may mean that for each new mechanism of action, other drugs may also may be developed. New mechanisms also contribute to a better understanding of the whole field of pharmaceutical science.

The majority of these new drugs are small molecule drugs, as opposed to larger protein/antibody based drugs. And at least 8 of these new drugs are for the treatment of so called orphan diseases (rare diseases that only occur in a small proportion of the population and which historically have been ignored by many pharmaceutical companies as uneconomical).

Some of the new drugs are as follows:

Drug  (company) For Treatment of:
Picato (Leo Pharma) (premaligant) Actinic keratosis
Sirturo (Johnson & Johnson) Multi-drug resistant tuberculosis
Zioptan (Merck & Co) Open-angle glaucoma/ocular hypertension
Stribild (Gilead Sciences) HIV  (a HAART drug combination)
Aubagio (Santofi) Multiple sclerosis
Xeljanz (Pfizer) Rheumatoid arthritis
Signifor (Novartis) Cushing’s disease
Gattex (NPS Pharmaceuticals) Short bowel syndrome
Perjeta (Genentech) HER-2 positive breast cancer
Stivaga (Bayer) Colorectal cancer
Iclusig (Ariad Pharmaceuticals) Chronic myeloid leukemia
Bosulif (Pfizer) Chronic myelogenous leukemia
Cometriq (Exelixis) Medullary thyroid cancer
Inlyta (Pfizer) Advanced kidney cancer

 

Also included amongst these new drugs are several new drugs to treat erectile dysfunction, one to assist with obesity and one for the treatment of anthrax.

Of course one of the challenges with new drugs is the cost. At the high end of the scale drugs like Gattex are costed at $295,000 (US) per year. Such drugs will no doubt prove a challenge for funding agencies such as New Zealand’s own Pharmac. This is the unfortunate result of the billions of dollars which it costs to discover, develop and manufacture drugs (although many observers argue that this cost would come down if drug companies spent more on research and less on marketing).

 

An “Alternative” View on Antibiotics Michael Edmonds Feb 12

1 Comment

“Eventually antibiotics are going to be seen as one of the worst things to ever come out of pharmaceutical science because in the end, they have made us only weaker in the face of ever increasing strong super bugs that are resistant to all of the antibiotics doctors have at their disposal. When we look at how deep the rabbit hole goes with antibiotics, we will get sick to our souls. Antibiotics have fulfilled their anti-biotic anti-life role leaving a long trail of death and suffering in the wake of their use”

This is the introductory paragraph from the article “The end of antibiotics and the rise of iodine as an effective alternative” by Marc Sircus and printed in the recent volume of the New Zealand “Journal” of Natural Medicine. I think it is a perfect example of the flawed thinking common amongst those who promote “alternative” therapies.

First it ignores the fact that since their development antibiotics have saved millions of lives. Before antibiotics diseases such as pneumonia and staph infections were often fatal, while other infections such as syphilis resulted severe ongoing health problems.

Instead the article draws attention to some of the side effects of antibiotics (e.g. yeast infections) and tries to make tenuous connections between antibiotic use and diseases such as breast cancer, asthma, bowel disorders and autism.

The article points out that iodine “kills 90 percent of bacteria on the skin within 90 seconds” (obvious sound bite), but provides no literature to support this. Even if this were true, it ignores the fact that many infections would not easily be treated by topical application of iodine.

A few anecdotes are thrown in as “evidence”, and the article has a quite unfocused, meandering tone, moving from talking about the benefits of iodine to garlic, to magnesium chloride and to healing clays. No references are provided for any of the studies or “research” mentioned in the article and the author plays the silly little word games common to alternative therapy advocates, suggesting that antibiotics are bad because “anti-biotic” means anti-life. However, he overlooks the obvious fact that if iodine “kills single celled organisms” then it must be “anti-life” too. Personally, anything that kills harmful micro-organisms seems like a pretty good idea to me, even if it is intrinsically “anti-life!

The article also has the usual overtones of “conventional (real) medicine is bad and conspiring against us.

The lack of rational thought and coherent argument in this article may be tragic, but I am more concerned about the tragedies that might arise from someone putting their faith in the advice included in this article and failing to use antibiotics to treat a life threatening disease.

 

“Miracle Mineral” Solution is not Janola Michael Edmonds Dec 28

No Comments

In a previous post I made the comment that “miracle mineral” solution (MMS) is made from sodium chlorite, which is one of the active ingredients of Janola, a commonly used bleach/cleaning agent in New Zealand. As has been pointed out in a comment by Ted Seay on my previous post, this is incorrect – while MMS does indeed use sodium chlorite, Janola contains sodium hypochlorite, a different oxidising agent.

Like other bloggers, science bloggers make mistakes occasionally. When this happens it is important to admit and correct the error because this is how science works.

So now that this correction has been made, let’s take the opportunity to look at the difference between these two chlorine based oxidants, what they are used for and how they work.

Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) is commonly used in household bleach often at concentrations of about 3 – 8%. Because it readily breaks down to produce sodium chloride (NaCl) and sodium chlorate (NaClO3) most bleach solutions also contain low concentrations of sodium hydroxide which slows down this decomposition.

When dissolved in water sodium hypochlorite produces hypochlorous acid, a strong oxidant capable of killing various micro-organisms as well as reacting with a wide range of biological molecules. This is why it is so effective as a bleach. This is also why, in emergencies, adding a small amount of bleach solution to potentially contaminated water (5 drops per litre) is often recommended by civil defence. As such a low dose it should kill most microbes in the water, but still is dilute enough to have no toxic effects on the body.

Sodium chlorite (NaClO2) on the other hand is used to generate chlorine dioxide (ClO2) for the bleaching of paper, textiles and sometimes to disinfect water supplies. Chlorine dioxide is a very effective oxidising agent/disinfectant.

Those promoting “Miracle Mineral” Solution (MMS) generally advise that it is produced by reacting sodium chlorite with a weak acid such as citric acid. When the acid is added it produces chlorous acid (HClO2) which degrades to chlorine dioxide (ClO2) which then degrades to chlorite, chlorate (ClO3-) and eventually chloride ions (Cl-).

So that’s the chemistry. And this chemistry helps explain why it doesn’t make sense to use MMS to treat internal diseases.

 

Why the use of MMS INTERNALLY doesn’t make sense

1) One of the reasons that sodium chlorite/citric acid is very useful in industry as a surface disinfectant is that it breaks down really quickly. This is why it is often mixed together just before use. The resulting chlorine dioxide then rapidly reacts with organic matter (e.g. bacteria) and is reduced to chlorites and any excess quickly evaporates from the surface being disinfected. However, when administered internally, the chlorine dioxide will be broken down long before it gets to where the disease is (perhaps the exception here would be mouth infections?).

2) On many of the websites that sell MMS they claim or imply that it is effective in treating complex diseases such as cancer, AIDS, colds, Lyme disease, malaria and kidney disease. Given how well understand how at least some of these diseases work, it makes no sense that MMS will work.

3) If MMS did work against these and other diseases those who have been cured would be presenting themselves to doctors, and the developer would probably been nominated for several Nobel prizes.

4) MMS follows the same pattern as many other pseudo-scientific treatments that have come before it – lots of hype, the selling of basic chemicals with ridiculous mark ups, and no verifiable results.

Definitely a “treatment” to avoid.

 

 

 

 

The Hypocrisy of the Immunisation “Awareness” Society Michael Edmonds Dec 20

42 Comments

Earlier this year, another sciblogger Darcy Cowan was successful in getting the tax exempt status of the Immunisation Awareness Society revoked based on the fact that they don’t fulfil the requirements of charity (see here).

One of the things that bothered me about the IAS at the time is that although they claim on their website to “To debate vaccination issues through symposiums, health forums, displays, talks, presentations and the media” and “to provide information for parents so that they can make an informed decision about vaccination” they really do not.

First, they only provide information designed to prevent parents from vaccinating. They may deny this occasionally but the articles and pictures make it clear they are anti-vaccine (of course if one of their authors would like to point out circumstances where they advocate for vaccinations I will correct this statement). Consequently, the information on their website is strongly biased, selective, and presented in a way that I would argue certainly does not allow parents to make an informed choice.

One only has to look at their website to see that on all of the posts the comments section is closed. This suggests to me they do not want to debate vaccination but prefer to sit in their little echo chamber of cherry picked information where they are more than happy to, for example, criticise Darcy and sciblogs without providing any public way for Darcy and others to respond to their rather petty response to his blogging.

The removal of the tax exempt charitable status of the IAS is a good start. A second improvement would be for them to be up front about their anti-vaccine position, perhaps changing to the name of their organisation as has their Australian cousin the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) is being required to do.

Is Modern Medicine Killing You? – Mediawatch on Radio New Zealand Michael Edmonds Dec 17

No Comments

I was invited to discuss “Is Modern Medicine Killing You?” on Mediawatch last week. An Mp3 of my interview with Adelia Hallett can be found here (after about 18:30 minutes).

« Older Entries

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer