SciBlogs

Posts Tagged alternative

Is Acupuncture Worth a Punctured Lung? or Does the Risk Out Weigh the Benefit? Darcy Cowan Aug 16

11 Comments

Friday’s issue of The New Zealand Medical Journal includes a case report of pneumothrorax in a recipient of acupuncture. For the interested layperson out there a pneumothorax in the collection of air in the space between the lung and chest wall leading in extreme cases to cardiac arrest. Acupuncture can result in pneumothorax when the needle is inserted into the lung tissue while the patient is breathing leading to the laceration of the lung and air being forced out of the lung and into the pleural cavity1. Mmm-mmm, gimmie some of that lung collapsing goodness.

Now lest I give the impression that complications from acupuncture use are common I will hasten to add that they are not. One paper estimates the rate of serious adverse events at approximately 1 per 20,ooo patients2. Though if we look at the rates of acupuncture use in the United States as an example, as of about 2007 approximately 1% of the population reported using acupuncture in the previous 12 months3. This translates to about 155 serious adverse effects per year. Another study found over 2% of patients reported adverse reactions that required treatment4, commonly for bleeding or pain. Multiply these figures by the likely worldwide numbers of people receiving acupuncture.

Lets compare this with the conventional medical field, the drug Terfenadine marketed under the trade name Seldane (Teldane here in NZ) was removed from the market in the US due to increased risk of cardiac arrhythmia when used in conjunction with certain other drugs. This expressed itself as a risk of 0.04 – 0.08 per million “defined daily doses”5. Once a replacement drug came on the market Terfenadine was taken off.

Pneumothorax as a complication from acupuncture is  rare even in this subgroup. More common is infection. As I’ve noted before6, the underlying theory of acupuncture is the manipulation of life energies (Qi or Chi), blockages or imbalances in which are the cause of disease. If such is the case then why should the treating physician7 bother with proper antiseptic technique? I suspect that most modern practitioners are however not so far down the rabbit-hole that they have thrown away germ theory completely, at least the outward practical side involved in cleaning and sterilising implements. Which is why even infections are still relatively infrequent.

I would like to point out however that given the implausibility of the treatment basis, coupled with the fact that most large well designed studies find no benefit beyond placebo does make the existence of any complications ethically troubling. If your treament is no more than an elaborate placebo, are you willing to suffer adverse effects because of it? As reported by Dr Novella of Science Based Medicine8, a recent review of acupuncture admitted that sham (placebo) acupuncture was as good a “real” acupuncture.

Lets delve into the definition of “sham” acupuncture a little more to give the proper context to this revelation. Whereas “real” acupuncture depends on the proper insertion of the needles in specific meridian points on the body sham acupuncture can be considered to be either the placement of needles into non-meridian points, or the use of implements that feel like needles to the patients but do not pierce the skin like toothpicks9. This indicates that it doesn’t matter where you stick the needles and it doesn’t even matter if you stick the needles. How then can we conclude that acupuncture works if you don’t need to perform the two defining characteristics of acupuncture?

Given this background I find it difficult to imagine why acupuncture continues to be recommended despite convincing evidence of efficacy and indisputable evidence of harm. All medical interventions carry some element of risk, this is then weighed against the potential for benefit. However when there is no benefit any amount of risk must make that equation lopsided with regard to harm. With that in mind, if you are attracted to acupuncture as a therapy let me recommend sham acupuncture as the way to go. All the placebo-y goodness of real acupuncture without the potential for the nasty drawbacks of infection, bleeding, pain or even pneumothorax.

Further reading:

Type “Acupuncture” and “Infection” or “Pneumothorax” into Pubmed as key words and you will find a variety of papers, a selection of which are below:

Acupuncture induced pneumothorax:a case report (not the report mentioned in the post)

Editorial:Acupuncture transmitted infections

Cutaneous Mycobacterium haemophilum infection in a kidney transplant recipient after acupuncture treatment.

Acupuncture needle-associated prosthetic knee infection after total knee arthroplasty

Footnotes:

1. Clinical analysis on 38 cases of pneumothorax induced by acupuncture or acupoint injection

2. A cumulative review of the range and incidence of significant adverse events associated with acupuncture

3. http://nccam.nih.gov/health/acupuncture/introduction.htm

4. Safety of acupuncture: results of a prospective observational study with 229,230 patients and introduction of a medical information and consent form.

5. Detection and reporting of drug-induced proarrhythmias: room for improvement

6. Scepticon: Acupuncture

7. And here I use the term loosely.

8.Acupuncture Pseudoscience in the New England Journal of Medicine

9. I kid you not, here are a couple of the studies:
Description and Validation of a Noninvasive Placebo Acupuncture Procedure
A randomized trial comparing acupuncture, simulated acupuncture, and usual care for chronic low back pain

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

Filed under: Alternative medicine, Medicine, Questionable Techniques, Sciblogs, skepticism Tagged: Acupuncture, Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine, alternative, Alternative medicine, altmed, collapsed lung, complementary and alternative medicine, health, Health and Medicine, Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine, pneumothorax, Science

World Homeopathy Awareness Darcy Cowan Apr 09

3 Comments

Just when I thought I wouldn’t have to worry about Homeopathy again any-time soon I discover that next week (April 10-16) is World Homeopathy Awareness Week. In theory I am right behind an initiative such as this as homeopaths do a surprisingly poor job of educating the public about what homeopathy actually is.

I suspect though that highlighting the fact that there is no active ingredient in most homeopathic preparations and that huge swathes of established science would have to be wrong for it to work will not feature prominently in the promotional materials.

For those not in the know homeopathy is based on two principles not found anywhere in science, like cures like, known as the “Law of Similars” and less is more or the “Law of Infinitesimals”. In a nutshell these two “Laws” state that a substance that causes similar symptoms to a disease will cure it and the more you dilute the substance the more powerful it becomes. In practice this means that homeopathic preparations can have some unusual starting ingredients (like duck liver) and are diluted to the point that no active ingredient is left in the final product.

A common dilution for preparations is 30C, or 30 consecutive 100 fold dilutions. At this level not only are the no molecules of active ingredient left there aren’t even any molecules of water left from the last dilution that contained any active ingredient.

Due to this fact homeopaths have been reduced to very fanciful explanations of how it might work, most involves invoking some sort of water “memory” effect. This isn’t impossible but neglects to mentions that if it is the case, then the water also remembers every poison it has come into contact with as well. How does it know which effect it should have? Should it kill or cure?

A study performed in 2008 and published in the New Zealand Medical Journal showed that while 85% of respondents believed they knew what homeopathy was less than 5% knew that there is no active ingredient in most preparations. I don’t expect this statistic to change due to any efforts on the part of homeopaths or those that sell generic remedies.

Here’s a pithy website dedicated to How Homeopathy Works.

For those with a high tolerance to brain melting gibberish here’s a video with one of the more confusing explanations of homeopathy:
Youtube Page direct

[UPDATE: Thanks to commenter Lizditz on Dr Steven Novella's blog about this I have been alerted to this great philosophy paper on Homeopathy; "Evidence and simplicity: Why we should reject homeopathy", go read it now.]

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Filed under: Alternative medicine, Medicine, Sciblogs, Science Tagged: alternative, Alternative medicine, altmed, health, Health and Medicine, Homeopathy, pseudoscience

What is the Harm of Alternative Medicine? Darcy Cowan Jan 26

10 Comments

Yesterday fellow Sciblogger Grant posted about homeopathic medications in pharmacies and questioned the legitimacy of reputable organisations selling such patent snake oil. The comments to this entry reveal one of the most frustrating aspects of speaking out against unscientific medicine and can be summarised thusly: “I’m far too sophisticated to be taken in by this stuff myself but other people seem to like it and if it doesn’t work then what’s the harm?”.

This attitude is ever present and comes from a reasonable starting point i.e. everyone is entitled to their own opinion and it’s not my job to save them from themselves. I can totally get behind that, usually. When it comes to ineffective medications of the alternative variety however this impulse though understandable is misguided and I’d like to put down a few reasons why I think so, some are speculative but I think the possibility of harm is great enough that they deserve to be considered.

For a start there may well be direct harm caused by using alternative remedies. As there is little to no regulation of these medications then no proof of safety or efficacy is required for sale. Witness the Zicam debacle last year regarding a “homeopathic” cold medication.

Further more the possibility for indirect harm (as multiply alluded to by Grant) may be significant. In case your imagination is not up to the task I will outline a few ways this may be the case. For instance the underlying principles of something like homeopathy are no only unscientific they are in direct contradiction of the last 200 years of scientific understanding. If they are used as the basis of reasoning about health then the results can be more dire than someone getting a bad nights sleep (in the case of the homeopathic sleep aid Grant used as an example).

Use of these therapies for minor ailments by the “worried and wonky well” may increase the possibility they they will be used for more serious health issues where the results could be deadly.

Look no further than the position statement of the WHO regarding the use of homeopathy in the treatment of Malaria and AIDs (among other things). The consequences of such thinking could be incalculable in terms of human suffering and spread of disease. But what’s the harm, right?

Additionally it is one thing for adults to make an informed choice for themselves based on available evidence filter through their particular world view but what about when this choice id forced on their children? The recent case of parents being found guilty of manslaughter over giving homeopathic remedies to their sick daughter is a terrible reminder that sometimes it is innocent children that pay the price for people’s gullibility. But, you know, what’s the harm?

When ostensibly professional medical providers such as pharmacists sell demonstrably irrational treatments they lend credibility to them that the average person uses to base decisions on. I mean the wouldn’t sell it if it didn’t work, right?

So while I understand the commitment to individual autonomy and freedom of choice that leads to the “What’s the Harm?” question, I fail to see how this means that fraudulent therapies must be let off the hook simply because there is a demand for them.

This has been a more vitriolic post than I normally write but what’s the point of a blog if you can’t vent once in a while?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Posted in Alternative medicine, Medicine, Questionable Techniques, Sciblogs, Science, skepticism Tagged: alternative, health, Health and Medicine, Homeopathy, Medicine, Practitioners and Clinics, Science and Society, Scientific method