Monday, July 16, 2007
NYT on Skin-care Devices
The New York Times takes a look at a myriad of skin-care devices, some electrical, some based on light therapy, but all of which offer cosmetic miracles and promises of eternal youth.
A snippet:
Though the fight against wrinkles long ago went high tech (and high cost), it is only recently that technologies such as pulsing heat, L.E.D.s and electrical currents have become safe and easy enough for consumers to use on themselves. Years after women first started recreating professional treatments with at-home spa days, a growing array of devices have migrated from the aesthetician's office to the bathroom, where they now compete with topical solutions, medications and other prescribed remedies to combat aging..."One of the major issues with these home-use devices is they promise more than they can deliver," said Dr. Arielle Kauvar, a dermatologist and associate professor at New York University School of Medicine who specializes in laser-assisted treatments. The claims they make -- that skin will be tightened or fine lines and wrinkles minimized -- are largely cosmetic, so the manufacturers do not need approval by the Food and Drug Administration, only clearance, said Dr. Kauvar, which is easier to get.
A manufacturer that claims scientific proof of its product's effectiveness is probably using the term loosely. For example, the makers of the RejuvaWand, an L.E.D.-based massaging tool said to "reverse the signs of aging" that came on the market in February, promote their two-month clinical trial. But the trial involved only 36 women, with no controls. Of the 36 women, 31 reported their skin had improved, said Marc Maisel, a company founder. The participants used a gel with hyaluronic acid, which also can plump skin, Dr. Kauvar said.
NYT: You Can Smooth or Zap but Will the Results Hit Home?
(1)
Friday, May 25, 2007
The Neurovasc Might Have Saved Anna Nicole Smith
We were intrigued to learn about a novel pain management device, just recently announced. The device, which seems to function as a vacuum, a neurostimulator, and a happy pill, is described further below:
A direct result of this research program was the development of the Neurovasc, a unique vacuum device that restructures the superficial components of the body. The Neurovasc eradicates pain by lifting and separating the layers of injured tissue, releasing entrapped nerves that cause pain. According to Brooks, the treatment also influences patients' brain chemistry and allows them to regain control over their lives when acute and chronic pain is relieved. With lower pain levels, patients report reduced stress, depression and anxiety levels; this also facilitates reducing patients' dependency on caffeine, alcohol and/or medication."Pain and stress compounded with substance abuse will eventually kill you," Brooks says. "The very tragic event involving Anna Nicole Smith focused public attention on this issue."
Alas, there are no pictures of this incredible technology, just a link to the Brooks Center -- dedicated to "Pursuing the Dynamic Fusion of Human Potential" -- whatever that means.
We learned a little more about this device from the "Articles" tab at the Brooks Center website (only one article is listed). The Article is not exactly peer reviewed, and rests heavily on a series of press releases from University of Michigan (though elsewhere on in the paper, the researchers are said to work at Michigan State).
A pseudoscience spectacular awaits as we begin reading the paper, which was written by Ron Brooks -- and Michael Prior, who is listed as a PhD but labeled as "General Council" -- it sounds like he was going for "General Counsel" but got the wrong doctorate. The paper opens with tripe like this:
In early 2007 we all witnessed what we consider a very tragic event involving Anna Nicole Smith. She gave birth to a daughter and lost her son all in a moment. There is no greater trauma than a loss of a child. This was obviously compounded by the abuse of some powerful medications; can you imagine what the poor woman's brain chemistry was doing? Perhaps this explains some of the bizarre behavior we saw before her subsequent overdose and death. This sequence of events is being played out in our country on a daily basis.Every day, another Anna Nicole Smith. Cable news reporters would stroke out. The paper goes on to 15 citations, including the American Heritage Dictionary. Nothing of what they describe suggests anything more than a high-school level understanding of neurology (although if we had written this in high school we'd be embarrassed):
We now know that the brain has neurons that are correctly programmed to produce, send, and receive a specific biochemical. Each biochemical, called neurotransmitters, travels along a different nerve pathway, resulting in a variety of physical processes. The pain signal comes into the brain and is processed by different parts of the brain for responses. The body's anti-pain system is activated and at the same time the chemical dopamine is released which acts as interface between stress and emotions.
Finally, they get to the point:
At this time in our research program we began to look at all of the available mechanical devices used for soft tissue manipulation. We tried these without success. Finally, we discovered an existing vacuum device used in the esthetics business, called Eureduc. At the time this device was used to reduce irregular bumps (cottage cheese) on women's thighs. We began to use this device in conjunction with cryotherapy and vasopump, and immediately found we could reduce the "Hydraulic Effect". This made it much easier to decompress the tissue. The upward force of the vacuum was also considerably more comfortable for the patient than the pressure from manipulating the tissue by hand.
We love how the term "cellulite" is too scientific for this article, and so the "irregular bumps" are parenthetically identified as "cottage cheese." The Eureduc is similarly unscientific, but was patented in 1973 and sells on Ebay for several thousand dollars.
We look forward to the clinical trials that demonstrate how decades-old anti-cellulite device can provide lasting changes to brain chemistry and the body's perception of pain. But we won't hold our breath. Perhaps the secret is that the Brooks Center researchers apply the vacuum directly to the patient's brain, sucking out all the neurons responsible for signaling pain. To continue to fool the public, however, these charlatans will have to target our brains' centers of reasoning.
(1)
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
BoingBoing Shamefully Ignores Valid Questions; More about User-Generated Content
A quick update on the WhoIsSick.org story. We have contacted BoingBoing's David Pescovitz, a celebrated science journalist and writer-in-residence for UC Berkeley's College of Engineering, for an explanation. Mr. Pescovitz, however, has stuck his head in the sand and has decided to ignore questions from us, as he really has no explanation. Referring to WhoIsSick.org as today's equivalent of Dr. John Snow's efforts to map cholera in London in 1854 shows fundamental lack of understanding by Mr. Pescovitz of what science is. Throwing questionably collected data on the map is not science. For BoingBoing, however, the definition of science seems to be any feel-good, user-generated content.
Also, our very own almost-MD Josh searched through Medgadget archives and uncovered a story about HEALTHmap Global Disease Tracker, an effort by two doctors at Children's Hospital Informatics Program in Boston.
From that article:
"While working on a state-funded program to track disease outbreaks in Massachusetts, the two discovered some inconsistencies in how information is reported. Some sources, such as ProMed-mail, provide very specific data that is verified by medical experts, but the process can be lengthy. At the other extreme, newspaper articles and blog entries come out far more quickly, but they are more likely to contain errors such as unconfirmed reports about avian flu infections in a country."You always have this trade-off between timeliness and specificity," said Brownstein."
As Josh says, "... at least they realize the scientific trade-offs between speed and accuracy. Their site also gives readers the option to map only information from credible sources like ProMed, WHO, etc... None of this Johnny-come-lately, i think i have a fever b/c my temp is 99.1..."
Also, if you have not followed our discussion at WhoIsSick post, then check it out. Your opinion will count.
(4)
Monday, April 23, 2007
WhoIsSick.org: Hypochondriacs Welcome!
When we were first contacted by PT Lee, a proprietor of Who Is Sick?, to report about this new people-driven website, we were dismissive. After all, the website is a hypochondriac's dream in action. Anyone, sick or not, can enter any symptoms and chart one's location on the map for others to see. (As in the map above, one Golden Gate Park dweller has a runny nose; three multi-symptom objects are floating in the SF Bay.)
When the site gets widespread, no-questions-asked coverage across the blogosphere, and BoingBoing enthusiastically proclaims that the site is comparable to efforts of the father of epidemiology Dr. John Snow's efforts to map cholera in London in 1854, we take it personally.
Putting aside a well-known tendency of BoingBoing to sensationalize anything (and, if it's new or populist, not to question it), here's a reminder to our readers. There is a difference between an observation and the scientific method. The peasant experience has not produced penicillin in 5,000 years of human history, but the scientific method did. If checking other people's hypochondria is your cup of tea: go ahead and indulge yourself. But don't call it epidemiology.
Will such a site ever be useful? Probably not. Run by people who cannot distinguish between fever and chills, vertigo and dizziness, and a host of other related and interrelated symptoms, such a site will never be a scientific tool. Just a screaming point for BoingBoing perhaps.
(13)
Friday, March 23, 2007
The Electro-Allergic
A headline in the UK's Daily Mail caught our eye:
"I'm Allergic to Modern Living"
And really, what followed was a laundry list of side effects from current methods of electronic communications. I'm not talking just about the patient's problem -- because the journalist and editor seem similarly afflicted. It's like they're all having a reaction to communicating clearly and understandably.
We have so many problems with this article, it's hard to know where to begin. How about this paragraph:
The 39-year-old is so sensitive to the electromagnetic field (emf) or 'smog' created by computers, mobile phones, microwave ovens and even some cars, that she develops a painful skin rash and her eyelids swell to three times their size if she goes near them.Um, EMF is not smog. But, to focus on the moving charges, the EMF around these devices is small and most are already shielded, otherwise their operations would interfere if they were in any kind of proximity (and, as we've repeatedly blogged, it's hard to get cell phones to cause problems with medical equipment).
The patient's claims of skin rashes and eyelid swelling are unquantified -- it's ok if this journalist isn't a doctor, but really, there are some pertinent questions to ask: Where are the rashes? When does the eyelid swelling start? How long does it last? What, specifically, has triggered it? Why now, and not when microwaves and cordless phones became common in the 1980's? I think readers would want to know this. But all we get is that nonsensicle picture of a scarred forehead, with a caption about swollen eyelids that aren't even pictured. Really, if you look at the photo too long, you can feel the irritation developing in your own forehead.
And, to be clear, no one has a "microwave allergy," any more than people have an allergy to fire. Microwaves burn. Now, if this patient's microwave has a broken or ill-fitting door, the energy could leak out during operation, heating and burning skin or objects close by. But I doubt her problems are so easily identifiable, reproducible, or curable. (One way to check for leakage is to place your cell phone inside the microwave and try calling it - if it rings, there's leakage.)
We experience this problem every day in the ER, when well-meaning patients point out they're "allergic" to things like Tylenol, because they vomited within two hours of taking it, back when they were eight. Someone once told me he was allergic to calcium, because it burned when it went through his IV. Allergic to calcium!
No. There's correlation, and there's causation. Allergies are real hypersensitive responses to innocuous materials (but, you know, less innocuous than electromagnetic waves). Rashes, blisters, hives, vomiting -- these can all be manifestations of allergies, but having these symptoms doesn't mean there's been an allergic response. This is high-school level thinking, and it's clearly missing from everyone involved in this article.
As for the rest of the piece, it's just one nonsequitor after another. Goth black walls. Silver sleep screens. There's no explanation for how any of this is supposed to work. There's a line about how she was going to be seen by a dermatologist, but abruptly moved, instead. Doctors are grouped and anonymously quoted as saying "little scientific evidence to back up a link between EMF and poor health. They claim the symptoms, often attributed to flu or viruses, are psychosomatic."
Then the journalist pretends that's just 'one viewpoint', and offers the counter point of Rod Read, from Electro-Sensitivity UK, who says the doctors are wrong, and "the pathology is now established."
Well! Who needs a foundation in medicine, research, and physics when you've got Rod Read's assertions?
Flashback: College bans Wi-fi: No More Reckless Experimentation
(10)
Friday, March 9, 2007
Artists As Pharmacists Part II: World's First Antidepressant Perfume
A sucker is born every minute, and we know what they're buying. They are falling prey to the Japanese-French artist Ora-ito's "prescription for happiness," which includes everything from perfume to body gel, to tan enhancers. We'll spare you the "artists are not doctors" rant from the last time an artisan tried their hand at medicine.
Prescription free happiness, now available?! smiley offers a unisex and universal range of products with micro-nutrients to activate happiness. Its secret [cough cough] formula is based on natural bio-chemistry combining theobromine with phenylethylamine derived from pure cacao extract. this psycho-stimulant cocktail is available in a whole range of preparations using galencial pharmacology. A 100% medical look for a unique therapy, the range is revealed out of the confined box of the luxury perfume industry. this antidepressant remedty [sic] is to be consumed without moderation: in the shower, in the bath, for any specific use anytime you wish! the formuaes are preserved in exclusive perfume bottles developed by the prestigious glassmaking techniques of Saint Gobain and designed by Ora-ito. Nothing like it to containe [sic] the happy therapy!In order to have everyone smile, even the most stubborn, smiley entrusted science with the composition of an olfactive substance with euphoriant bio-mechancis [sic]. It is in nature that the components of this psyco-active cocktail were drawn. thanks to research undertaken worldwide by scientists on the tangible benefits of aromatherapy, smiley isolated the ingredients recognized for their stimulating capacities and assembled them for the first time in a perfume. smiley contains monoaminated alkaloids having a pharmacodynamic action called phenylethylamine and theobromine. Phenylethylamine is to passion what endoerphin is to love. It sets off a feeling of joy, excitement and euphoria. Theobromine blocks the receivers of adrenalin and thus decreases the affects of stress by a comfortable feeling of well being. these two cariotonics associated together dope vitality and sets up the moral. It's that simple. What were we waiting for to flood these beneficial molecules on everyone?!!!
Golly-gee Mr. Ora-ito, what big words you use. Surely your product must work exactly as described, especially since it sounds all scientific and stuff. Never mind that theobromine has a "ten fold less stimulating effect to humans than caffeine," or that phenethylamine is a known skin irritant with a classic fishy odor. Exactly what part of your watered down caffeine and fishy skin irritation is supposed to instantly cure me of my depression?
Product Page . . . (warning: funkadelic Euro dance remix music)
(hat tip: Book of Joe)
(0)
Friday, February 23, 2007
Taurus Excrement: The Signs In Science
We like to think of ourselves as rigorous thinkers, and so we enjoy it when academics apply reason and science to astrology (fun abstracts: 1,2,3,4).
Far riskier, though, is when academics use statistics to demonstrate a point that might be missed by the not-so-educated. For instance, these researchers have a clever, high-minded goal that could easily be misinterpreted:
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council grantee Peter Austin and three other researchers at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto have just completed a survey of hospital visits in Ontario, showing that, compared to people born under other astrological signs, Virgos have an increased risk of vomiting during pregnancy, Pisces have an increased risk of heart failure, and Libras have an increased risk of fracturing their pelvises.In fact, each of the 12 astrological signs had at least two medical disorders associated with them, thus placing people born under a given sign at increased risk compared to those born under different signs.
The study, which used data from 10,000,000 Ontario residents in 2000, was conducted with tongue firmly in cheek.
"Replace astrological signs with another characteristic such as gender or age, and immediately your mind starts to form explanations for the observed associations," says Austin. "Then we leap to conclusions, constructing reasons for why we saw the results we did. We did this study to prove a larger point -- the more we look for patterns, the more likely we are to find them, particularly when we don't begin with a particular question."
Indeed, a similar study last year by an online insurance company led to a variety of credulous interpretations, one of which led to the jaw-dropping research excerpted below:
I was surprised to find other studies looking at this same question -- although their results were quite contradictory. Nancy Fenn at Tarot.com refers to a study conducted by Suncorp Metway, Ltd., an Australian financial service. Apparently Suncorp reviewed 160,000 accident claims over a three-year period, and found that Gemini were the worst drivers, followed by Taurus and Pisces. Meanwhile, she found, Capricorns are the best drivers, followed by Sagittarians and Scorpios.The debate doesn't stop there. The Web site for Norwich Union, a British insurance company, has reprinted an article from June 2005 claiming that "fast and furious Leos reported the highest number of accidental damage claims," and that, along with Cancers (I have never had a claim, by the way), are "twice as likely to submit claims" as Geminis, Pisces and Sagittarians.
...There is an explanation for the differing views on astrological signs and the driving records and tendencies of the twelve groups. Carol Allen, one of the most respected astrologers in the country and the astrologer of choice to Hollywood's movers and shakers, explains that in astrology, the month of your birth may be less important than the position of the planets at a given time.
Thank goodness we have a respected astrologer clear up this confusing matter with more gobbledygook. We'll stick with the conclusions of Austin's team: Correlation is not causation -- when retrospective studies identify an association, you've got to prospectively validated them. When Austin's group tried this, the associations between astrological sign and disease vanished.
(3)
Friday, February 16, 2007
LaserComb For Your Chrome Dome
Holy Shatner! The FDA has actually approved the HairMax Lasercomb for thicker, fuller hair. Obviously, the HairMax employee who put together that application was not the same one in charge of their cheesy websites and press releases:
And laser energy is also coherent. All energy consists of waves of energy and in the light bulb these waves are not organized or in sync with each other. The waves of light energy produced by a laser are synched or in phase with each other. These characteristics make laser energy a truly unique form of light energy.LLLT is used throughout the world and for the energy produced by the HairMax LaserComb there are no reported or known adverse side effects.
Here's the data the approval was based on (it's not in any peer-reviewed journal we could find, and the fact that this page refers to it as a 'miracle' makes me question its independence):
For the FDA submission, Lexington conducted an extensive clinical study in four different locations across the United States. The study concluded that 93% of the participants (ages 30-60) using the HairMax LaserComb had an increase in the number of terminal (thick) hairs. The average number of terminal hairs per square centimeter increased by 19 hairs/cm2 over a six-month period. During the study, there were no reports of serious adverse events. The number and types of adverse events were similar in both the active and placebo groups.How does this miracle work? Fortunately, treatments using the HairMax LaserComb are easy to administer, only 10 to 15 minutes three times per week, and the laser device is convenient to use in the comfort and privacy of your own home. HairMax has been precision-engineered into a compact device about the size of a curling iron. Just pass it through your hair three times a week for about ten minutes for optimal results. Of course, everybody is unique and results differ among individuals, but anecdotal trials have shown that over 90% of users experience positive benefits and are satisfied with the results they achieve. In general, about 45% of users see noticeable improvements in as little as 8 weeks of treatment. Another 45% realize benefits from 8 to 16 weeks. A small group of users take longer, seeing results around 16 weeks.
So after six months of 3-times-a-week use, laser users reported 19 more thick hairs per square centimeter, compared to sham groups. All this time, we thought they were pulling the wool over our eyes.
The lasercomb retails for over $600.
More from the FDA (pdf) and Lexington LaserComb, an apparently legitimate company...
Flashback: Smoke and Mirrors
(5)
Thursday, December 14, 2006
They Want To Believe
Here's a delicious column from Now! Magazine's Elizabeth Bromstein, detailing her trip to the Whole Life Expo in Toronto. She encounters booth after booth of pseudoscience vendors, but also comes away with some awareness of this dedicated, well-meaning (but oh so wrong) group:
The Doctor's Chocolate (list price $49.95 for 65 pieces) is apparently an all-natural dark chocolate and raspberry truffle that not only relieves anxiety but reduces PMS symptoms and heightens mental clarity, partly because it contains the amino acid L-theanine.The literature refers to its "unique raspberry chocolate delivery system." I eat a sample piece but don't seem to feel any less agitated and wonder if the unique raspberry chocolate delivery system is working properly.
At another booth I see the StressBlocker ($342). This machine, I'm told, runs at a frequency of 9.216 MHz, encouraging the body to operate at an ideal internal frequency level of 12 to 25 Hertz. It also supposedly heals cuts and lesions "10 times faster than normal." I can't begin to imagine why every hospital trauma unit in North America isn't using a StressBlocker.
A little way on, I'm intrigued by the TurboSonic vibration therapy machine ($14,449), whose vibrations are claimed to restore sexual response, speed recovery from surgery trauma, increase bone density and reduce body fat and cellulite, among other fantastic things."But it just shakes you," I say to the man at the booth.
"Well," he says with a serious face, "it is a Class I medical device under the FDA." Far be it from me to be suspicious of a Class I medical device, but Class I simply means that a device represents minimal potential for harm to the user. It doesn't mean it actually works.
Most of the vendors she encounters, however, aren't deceiving people with misleading terms, but rather, earnestly hoping their dubiously conceptualized, untested products work. They mean well, and we hope they find the stress reduction, energy, clearheadedness, and health that they're looking for.
More from Whole Life...
(0)
Friday, September 1, 2006
Pseudoscience Friday: Google Epidemiology
The opportunity for this week's pseudoscience post has presented itself unexpectedly. Yesterday's Google Health News item just plainly said "West Nile Virus detected in Douglas." Really? Where did it come from? That wasn't hard to track, thanks to a 24 hour news cycle. The 170 related news articles have bravely taken us on an epidemiology adventure.
Immediately, it was clear that "West Nile Moves Into Stark County." That was our first strong lead. Could it have come from Brown County? Or from Orange County? Could the original source be in Grayson, Mesa, San Joaquin or Ventura counties? Probably not. Clearly, the combination of Cass county cases and the presence of the virus in Wayne county was giving us much broader picture. We had to do the interstate approach.
State Sen. Bob Peck, R-Riverton, Montana was diagnosed with West Nile virus. Ha, the Republican connection! We knew it. So it must be in the fly-over country. And it was: in Utah, North Dakota, Georgia and Texas. But not only peasants were affected. Chicagoans, Toledoans, and New Yorkers were also infected. As well, of course, as Mundeleiners.
The good news? West Nile cases down. And the bad? West Nile infections soar. And the real bad? West Nile Cases Increase During Fall.
So what to do? Enjoy the outdoors, but use precautions. After all, the third death in Utah and the second in Illinois is the scariest part of our story.
(0)
Friday, August 25, 2006
Pseudoscience Fridays: Going to Court
No, we haven't been sued by some magnet-hocking web footed "forward thinking practitioner." However, should we be sued, the judge before us could find himself/herself at a loss when it comes to scientific or medical facts. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the US Supreme Court ruled that federal judges may arbitrate what evidence/testimony a jury sees, and encouraged them to turn to established scientific organizations to find neutral experts, rather than guess at which scientist's science-speak seems sincerely scientific. Robert Park, PhD, is such a man. He's got seven warning signs for bogus science...
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists....2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government. Claims that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of such a car is baloney....
Hmmm...the evil establishment holding down your discovery. Is that so,
Ah, another winner from our past...
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth.6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.
The list (with more details filled in) is hosted over at quackwatch.org, where it's always Pseudoscience Friday. Hopefully, in a courtroom battle, one could at least hold the scientific high ground by citing such a list (and, more importantly, it's previous use by other judges).
(0)
Friday, August 18, 2006
Pseudoscience Fridays: Video Edition, The Cure For Everything
So, we've been on a bit of a video kick this week. Our column of craptacular science will be no exception. That said, we give you Dr Robert Beck. (Of course, that "Dr." doesn't refer to an MD or PhD, but a D.Sc.). Dr. Beck can be seen here in what looks like a high school gymnasium with a podium that says "The Granada Forum." He has come to outline how...
...there has been a perfectly workable, 95% accurate, cure for HIV, and cancer, and herpies, and hepatitis, and epstein bar, and about a dozen other incurable diseases which was invented on March 11th, 1990 in the Albert Einstien college of medicine in New York City...
What evidence have we for this miracle cure? Why, it's a pile of unpublished "IRB studies." At this medgadgeteer's last place of employment, the Institutional (Internal?) Review Board didn't actually perform any research, but only decided whether your protocol was safe for the patients involved. Either way, he can't show them to anyone who's not a health professional, so he has an audience member come up and glance over his shoulder while he cites away.
Oh, yeah...back to the miracle cure. Of course, it's been suppressed. But who would suppress such a cure? (Fast forward to about 2:30 in the video to follow along)...
I've found that the mafia, the mafia, the mob owns about 51% of major pharmaceutical houses.
And that, folks is why we here are Medgadget don't like to cover pharma news, since we don't like mixing with those mafia types. (Bob...er, Dr Beck doesn't mention a source for that info, btw).
But wait, what does this therapy actually entail? You'll have to wait until the last 45 seconds to find out (in some rather vague terms). By now, we've come to recognize that the actual treatment is the least of concern to good pseudoscience. What's really important is that it's a fraction of the cost, portends to cure something uncurable (or even a non-existant condition) or, in this case, has been suppressed by the mafia-owned pharma business.
Anyways, they place electrodes on the skin above major arteries to "electify" blood in order to prevent viruses from reproducing. Yes, we know viruses don't really reproduce (at least in the mitotic sense), so we'll let the caption that accompanies the video round things out after the jump...(along with parts 2 and 3 of this lecture).
(6)
Friday, August 11, 2006
Pseudoscience Fridays: The Cause of Cancer
That's right ladies and gentlemen, we've found it. Forget what you've heard about chemical damage to cellular DNA, Dr Otto Walburg has arrived with great new info...
Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. Almost anything can cause cancer. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause. The prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen (oxidation of sugar) in normal body cells by fermentation of sugar.All normal body cells meet their energy needs by respiration of oxygen, whereas cancer cells meet their energy needs in great part by fermentation. All normal body cells are thus obligate aerobes, whereas all cancer cells are partial anaerobes. From the standpoint of the physics and chemistry of life this difference between normal and cancer cells is so great that one can scarcely picture a greater difference. Oxygen gas, the donor of energy in plants and animals, is dethroned in the cancer cells and replaced by the energy yielding reaction of the lowest living forms, namely the fermentation of sugar.
Really...it has nothing to do with cell growth regulation? Okaaay...so based on this great information, how do we prevent cancer?
To prevent cancer it is therefore proposed first to keep the speed of the blood stream so high that the venous blood still contains sufficient oxygen; second, to keep high the concentration of hemoglobin in the blood; third, to add always to the food, even of healthy people, the active groups of the respiratory enzymes; and to increase the doses of these groups, if a precancerous state has already developed. If at the same time exogenous carcinogens are excluded rigorously, then much of the endogenous cancer may be prevented today.
We've tried to find a specific proposal for a mechanism to keep venous blood highly oxygenated or any speculation as to how to get arterial O2 saturations higher than the usual 90-something level. And, of course we were looking for a pile of relevant material published in credible journals, but, to be honest, it's become too complicated to continue digging through the assorted "evidence" and other claims at alkalizeforhealth.net. Boy do they know how to write a disclaimer (emphasis ours):
The people responsible for this web site are not medical professionals. We publish the information on this web site as a public service. We assert our right of freedom of expression to take issue with the medical profession's conflict of interest regarding cancer treatment and prevention. While we hope the information presented here is helpful, what you do with it is your responsibility.
By following along the assorted therapies listed in the sidebar or via the table of contents, you can really find a great repository of junk science.
(3)
Friday, August 4, 2006
Pseudoscience Friday: Devicewatch.org
As we search the web for great medical device quackery, we've come to realize that while the internet is a great source of nonsense, many have taken up The Good Fight and waged a war of information against cybercharlatans. One such site: Device Watch. A member of the quackwatch.org family, devicewatch.org offers a sort of Bizarro-world Medgadget directory, a compendium of nonsense devices, operated by Stephen Barrett, MD.
Originally, we debated selecting a specific device, but found the whole collection deserving to be featured. We'll begin with a list of signs of a quack device. Particularly great: "It has bright lights that serve no apparent purpose," "The manufacturer isn't exactly sure how or why it works" and "To get results, the patient must face a certain direction or use the device only at unusual times."
While not every item on the "Devices Promoted with False and/or Misleading Claims" list has a link with specific information, most contain very thorough writeups regrading devices and their web-footed promoters. Highlights after the jump...
(0)
Friday, July 28, 2006
Pseudoscience Fridays: Anecdotal Evidence
It's surprisingly hard work to find good pseudoscience, particularly gadget-related pseudoscience. Herbal remedies ripe for mockery abound, but there's not much gadgetry involved. Rather than hunt all over the series of tubes that is the internets for great gadgetry, we've decided to focus on a common theme in all of pseudoscience: the anecdote. According to wikipedia...
Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote, or hearsay. The term is usually used in contrast to scientific evidence, especially evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific because it cannot be investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc.) The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is.When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal evidence is often called a testimonial. The term is also sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony. Psychologists have found that people are more likely to remember notable examples than the typical example. This is why casinos usually try to draw attention to someone winning; this tends to make everyone else think that they are much more likely to win than they are. Another example is the fact that people are often afraid to fly after a major airline accident, even though flying is statistically similar in risk to driving.
Being the educated medical/scientific audience that you are, it's important to recognize and communicate to the masses that testimonials do not necessarily reflect statistical reality. All too often, we see comments of such value as:
I think that whoever wrote this webblog should get a life. I have used this technology and it does work great. so there!!
So there, indeed. Unfortunately "John Hopkins" didn't really describe much about his conditions or where he received treatment. A good testimonial (anecdote) needs more details. For instance, we have this beauty from last week's Pseudoscience Friday field trip to eBay...
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS OF ANY USE TO YOU AND I WISH I HAD WAITED BEFORE LEAVING FEEDBACK BECAUSE THESE MAGNETS ARE AMAZING THIS IS FACT. I WENT TO LAZIC VISION BECAUSE MY EYESIGHT HAS BECOME SO POOR LATELY, THEY SAID TRHEY WERE UNABLE TO HELP ME BECAUSE MY PROBLEM WAS TO DO WITH MUSCLES IN MY EYES AND AGE RELATED. IT HAS BEENTWO WEEKS SINCE I STARTED USING THE MAGNETS AND TODAY I WAS ABLE TO THROW AWAY MY GLASSES.(I HAVE BEEN USING THEM FOR 2 YEARS) I HAVE NOTICED A STEADY BUT DEFINATE IMPROVEMENT IN MY VISION AND AS I SAID NO LONGER NEED READING GLASSES BECAUSE I CAN SEE AGAIN WITHOUT THEM. MY HUSBAND HAS JUST BEGUN WEARING READING GLASSES AND RECENTLY SPENT £200 ON NEW PRESCRIPTION LENSES HE SAID IF MY EYES CONTINUE TO IMPROVE HE WILL GET SOME MAGNETS TOO. HE SAID £12 FOR PERFECT VISION IS A BARGAIN IN ANY ONES BOOK. CANNOT WAIT TO SEE IF ANYTHING ELSE GETS BETTER I WONDER IF I WILL BE ABLE TO CANCEL MY FACE LIFT SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST. THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN FOR THIS PRODUCT I CANNOT PRAISE THEM ENOUGH, IF MY EYES ARE THE ONLY IMPROVEMENT THEY ARE WORTH THEIR WEIGHT IN GOLD. TO GET TO MY QUESTION. THE MAGNETS ARE TOO BIG FOR MY FINGERS SO I HAD TO PAD THEM OUT WITH PLASTERS DO THEY COME IN A SMALLER SIZE.
It goes on from there. The all-caps and inclusion of all sorts of outside information definitely suggest that this is someone's grandmother. Adding extra detail to the testimonial helps create the complete character in the reader's mind. As a septugenarian venturing into the largest marketplace on earth, how could you not believe such a story?
...and that's the problem. Patients will come into your clinic armed with all sorts of "My sister/aunt/mother/husband/cousin/landlord/shaman had [insert treatment] and it didn't work, so I don't want it either" arguments. It's your job to advocate the best research-supported treatments around, and more importantly to convince the patient that unfortunately, a number of factors might have contributed to their sister/aunt/mother/husband/cousin/landlord/shaman's experience, and that the best evidence available points towards this treatment.
Come across something particularly fishy? Particularly deserving of being brought to the center of the internet town square to be tarred and feathered? Drop us a line at tips-at-medgadget.com
(0)
Friday, July 21, 2006
Pseudoscience Fridays: eBay!
Get ready for our newest feature's sophomore editition. Last week, we shook with laughter at bioresonance therapy. This week's target: eBay! Actually, we've got nothing against eBay (where else are you going to find the rear window switch for a 1985 4Runner when the dealer wants $75?), but if ever there was a place to waste money on a "medical" device, eBay's the place. Of course, there's the usual male enhancement devices, some weird chiropractic tool (for $400), and an acupuncture pen that doesn't actually do any puncturing, but click through for the real eBay gems...
