University of California Irvine

On the "integration" of quackery into the medical school curriculum

oracknows — Wed, 11 Oct 2017 07:20:33 +0000

On the "integration" of quackery into the medical school curriculum

QEDCon is fast approaching (indeed, I can't believe I have to leave for Manchester tomorrow night), and because my talk there will be about the phenomenon of "integrative medicine," I've been thinking a lot about it. As I put together my slides, I can't help but see my talk evolving to encompass both "integrative" medicine and what I like to refer to as quackademic medicine, but that's not surprising. The two phenomenon are related, and it's hard to determine which has a more pernicious effect on science in medicine.

One aspect of quackademic medicine that I probably don't write about as much as I should is the "integration" of quackery into the curricula of medical schools. Part of the reason for that, I suspect, is that I am fortunate enough to be faculty at a medical school and cancer center that remain relatively untouched by the pseudoscience of integrative medicine. True, our medical school does have at least one credulous lecture about "complementary and alternative medicine" (CAM) that the medical students have to imbibe, but it really is pretty close to the bare minimum required by the accrediting agencies. Oh, yes. Proponents of integrative medicine have been so successful that one requirement for accreditation by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) is that there be adequate instruction about CAM. Actually, that's not quite true. Among the educational objectives in the LCME requirements is ED-10: "The curriculum of a medical education program must include behavioral and socioeconomic subjects in addition to basic science and clinical disciplines." This is where CAM and integrative medicine are slipped in. That's because the Academic Consortium for Integrative Medicine and Health successfully lobbied the LCME to include CAM in its list of topics addressed in the LCME Medical Education Database relative to accreditation standard ED-10. Unfortunately, how that is done in practice is often in the form of entirely credulous teaching of CAM.

Last month, when I wrote about the $200 million donation to the University of California, Irvine (UCI) by the billionaire couple Susan and Henry Samueli to create a college of health sciences that will encompass several UCI schools, including its school of medicine and nursing school, dedicated to "integrating" quackery at all levels into medicine thusly:

The Samuelis’ gift will provide $50 million toward construction of a facility to house the college and $5 million for state-of-the-art technology and labs – forming the foundation of a national showcase for integrative health. It also earmarks $145 million to create an endowment for:

Up to 15 faculty chairs across the medicine, nursing, pharmacy and population health disciplines for senior, midcareer and junior faculty with expertise in integrative health

Integrative health training and mentoring for interested medical school students

Scholarships and fellowships for undergraduate and graduate students planning careers in related fields

Innovative curricular development and campuswide interdisciplinary research projects

Ongoing clinical services, research and education in the Susan Samueli Integrative Health Institute, including investigations of nonconventional interventions as part of medical treatment and educating medical and lay communities about benefits and risks associated with new healthcare approaches

What I didn't talk about so much was number 3: "innovative curricular development." That's CAM-speak for teaching CAM alongside real medicine as though homeopathy has scientific validity. This brings us to an article by noted cheerleader for "integrative medicine" Glenn Sabin, Integrative health's place in the medical school curriculum. If you want to know where Sabin's coming from, consider my previous discussions related to his promotion of alternative medicine, such as his "history" of the integration of quackery with medicine and his advocacy for anecdotal evidence disguised as "N-of-1 trials" over clinical trials in determining if various alternative medicines "work." He also first got my attention for openly admitting that integrative medicine is a brand, not a specialty. Also consider this paragraph from his latest:

My colleague, John Weeks, wrote a terrific response in Huffington Post to the media’s shameful coverage of the visionary and game-changing Samueli gift to UCI. He cogently supports his position with actual research, facts, and developments that illustrate just how out-of-touch these dwindling skeptics are—and how a few media outlets took the bait that led them down a narrow-minded narrative centering on one controversial therapy: homeopathy.

For me, though, the back-and-forth with the cynics is not worth the expended energy. This is not just about acupuncture or chiropractic or massage or dietary supplements. It’s much bigger.

The Samueli gift is about the future of health, led by the doctors of tomorrow, like my nephew, Max, who is in his first year of medical school at George Washington University.

Homeopathy is not "controversial." It is rank pseudoscience. This is not even in dispute. Just look at the way UCI started furiously scrubbing its websites of references to homeopathy as soon as critics started looking at the Samuelis' gift in detail. Clearly, the administration was embarrassed. I also note that one earlier gift agreement between the Samuelis to UCI explicitly mentioned that it was to be used to promote research into homeopathy, among other pseudoscientific modalities and that until recently UCI advertised the services of a naturopath and homeopath on its website. Even proponents of integrating quackery into medicine are embarrassed by homeopathy.

When discussing the "integration" of quackery into medical school, I like to discuss another "George" university namely Georgetown. In many ways, it was a "trailblazer" in "integrating" quackery into medicine. I recounted its history just a couple of years ago, citing a 2003 Georgetown brochure:

One of the reasons CAM is usually offered as an elective is that there’s just no time or room in U.S. medical schools to fit in one more massive subject,” says Michael Lumpkin, Ph.D., professor and chair of the department of physiology and biophysics at Georgetown. “When the course is an elective, a self-selected group – maybe 10 or 20 students in a class of 180 medical students – will take it,” Lumpkin says. “What we’ve tried at Georgetown is rather than create all new courses, we take relevant CAM issues and modalities and weave them seamlessly into existing courses.

The “seamless” weaving of CAM into existing classes includes, for instance, a presentation by an acupuncturist on the “anatomy of acupuncture” in the gross anatomy course for first-year students. The same lecturer explores acupuncture’s application in pain relief in the neuroscience course…

Haramati and Lumpkin say Georgetown’s program is distinct from CAM initiatives in other medical schools in two ways: The school is integrating CAM education into existing course work across all four years of each student’s medical education, and the initiative includes a mind-body class to help students use techniques to manage their own health and improve self-care.

Yes, fourteen years ago, Georgetown was "integrating" pseudoscience into its medical school curriculum at every level, starting from day one. Twelve years later, it was celebrating pseudoscience on the cover of the medical school's magazine. That's not all, though. Reflexology is taught as fact, along with prescientific medical systems, such as traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), "energy healing" like reiki and therapeutic touch, and pretty much every "integrative" quackery you can think of. In 2007, Georgetown partnered with the naturopathy school Bastyr University to train the next generation of integrative medicine practitioners.

This is the sort of future of medicine that Weeks and Sabin so strongly desire.

It's also not as though George Washington University isn't itself a bastion of quackademic medicine. Three years ago, I wrote about all the quackery advertised on its website. GWCIM's list of services includes acupuncture (of course!), chiropractic, craniosacral therapy, infrared light therapies, glutathione infusions, Myers’ Cocktail, naturopathy (again, of course!), reiki, intravenous high dose vitamin C, and genetic profile results that include “customized interpretation of 23andme.com genetic profile results with specific accent on methylation and detoxification profiles.” It’s a truly horrifying website to contemplate, given how little of it has any resemblance to science-based medicine and how much of it includes outright quackery like reiki. In addition, its website’s descriptions of various alternative medicine modalities are depressingly and similarly credulous. Acupuncture is described as being used for “for treatment of respiratory, digestive, urinary and reproductive systems, as well as the disorders of muscle tone, hormone production, circulation, and allergic responses” plus “pain relief, gynecological conditions and symptoms, insomnia, anxiety, and to enhance wellness.” Naturopathy is described as a “comprehensive approach to health and healing that combines modern scientific knowledge with traditional and natural forms of medicine,” with naturopaths addressing “the mental, emotional and physical aspects of an individual, and aim to treat the root causes as well as the symptoms of illness.” According to GWCIM, naturopaths are “trained as primary care doctors at accredited four-year naturopathic medical schools.”

No. They. Aren't.

I also can't help but note that John Weeks' article was really nasty broadside against critics of the Samuelis' gift to UCI in which he accused them of having "blood on their hands." Apparently, Sabin approves of such rhetoric, as long as it's directed against his opponents.

Sabin's article is yet another example of how "integrative medicine" rebrands science-based modalities, such as nutrition, exercise, and lifestyle modification as somehow "alternative" or "integrative" and then uses them as the vehicle in which quackery is also "integrated" into medicine, while trying to dismiss anyone who points out the pseudoscience as the "old guard—the few out-of-touch, aging critics pushing back." (I note that Sabin and Weeks aren't exactly spring chickens themselves.) Naturally, he tries to push back against the critics' narrative:

These same integrative health and medicine naysayers essentially conflate quackery—which ought to be called out and confronted—with the larger, progressive, and impactful, integrative health and medicine movement.

Critics also purport that nutrition, physical activity, and stress reduction are already consistently applied (or taught) clinically—that it’s already ‘part of medicine’. These few critics are wrong. Their view is incorrect. Their statements are patently false. We know this because, if these truly preventative measures were applied—if this was remotely the case—our healthcare delivery system would be consistently delivering ‘health care’, not ‘chronic disease care’.

Proponents of integrative medicine always try to sweep all the quackery their specialty embraces under the rug. Pay no attention to that quackery behind the curtain, they say. We're all about nutrition, lifestyle, and stress reduction. They somehow never manage to address the question: Why is quackery so associated with integrative medicine? If integrative medicine really were about "nutrition, lifestyle, and stress reduction" and nothing else, the quackery would be unnecessary. Homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, "energy healing," functional medicine, bogus allergy testing, and more forms of pseudoscience and quackery than I can list here (but have discussed over the years on this very blog) would not find such a comfortable home in "integrative medicine." That they do fit so nicely in "integrative medicine" is by design, not accident.

Consider this. Let's, for the sake of argument, concede that Sabin has a point. Perhaps nutrition, physical activity, and stress reduction are not sufficiently consistently applied in clinical medicine. If that is indeed the case, the answer is to develop strategies to change this shortcoming in medicine. Those strategies, assuming they're science based (as they should be), will not involve embracing pseudoscience and quackery. Sabin and Weeks go on and on and on about promoting the "nutrition, physical activity, and stress reduction" aspect of medicine, but fail to explain why a separate specialty is needed to emphasize these health promotion activities more. That's because they can't. The entire unspoken rationale that they cannot admit is that "nutrition, physical activity, and stress reduction" function, in essence, as a Trojan horse for hardcore quackery. Integrative medicine shows up at the gates of academic medicine looking like ""nutrition, physical activity, and stress reduction," but once the horse is pulled into the ivory tower of academia, out jumps the real quackery, like naturopathy, homeopathy, acupuncture, functional medicine, and the like.

Also unspoken is that the reason integrative medicine proponents want so badly to insinuate their specialty and thinking into medical school is because they want "nutrition, physical activity, and stress reduction" forever linked with the quackery that they also champion. At schools like GWU and Georgetown, it's working, too. I fear, however, that UCI will soon far surpass both GWU and Georgetown as bastions of quackademic medicine.

oracknows Wed, 10/11/2017 - 03:20

Categories

Education

Does anyone have access to fitness and exercise advice prescribed by the "integrative" crowd?

I'm ready to bet £5 that it's all about tai-chi, yoga and "be careful not to exert yourself" types of exercise, rather than strength training or anything close to a sport or planned training with measurable performance or objectives.

To be fair, some forms of yoga can be very vigorous. I used to do vinyasa and ashtanga at a studio in Ann Arbor, and it was definitely difficult and good exercise. There are "goals," like being able to attain certain postures or getting better at "easy" ones, holding things for longer, etc.

Sure, we can be a really proficient Yogi in the same way that someone can be a really good golfer, volleyball player or anything else.

My perspective though, is that there are sports and exercise endeavours that are more conducive than others to improving people's fitness in a measurable way.

My anecdotal experience is that alt-med types are keen to praise fitness and food advice but such advice is not even that great.

This:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fHrvWqN2TkM

Is not exactly golf. But whatever.

Sure, we can be a really proficient Yogi in the same way that someone can be a really good golfer, volleyball player or anything else.

Don't confuse the popularized "Swedish gymnastics" version of yoga with that connoted by the yogi/yogini title.

From the course descriptions, it looks like my med school hasn't yet integrated quackery into its curriculum.

It did recently get a huge cash donation, but the only visible consequence as far as I can tell is that they renamed the med school after the donor.

@ The Vodka Diet Guru:

To be truthful, a few woo-meisters** DO provide information about cardiovascular and strength training and advocate their usage - as well as yoga et al -
HOWEVER they often present realistic material in self serving ways or exaggerate its effects on health and longevity
.
They present themselves as examples and hint that their products will allow followers to achieve similar spectacular results to their own. Yep, they're elite athletes/ specimens.

They misrepresent what is indeed even feasible for most people in the real world ( which none of them inhabit)-
e.g. one hour of CV a day and one hour of weights most days plus meditation; doing physical work on a ranch or farm.
All while eating extremely restricted, arcane diets ( vegan, mostly raw or paleo, organic etc).

They promise incredible non-verifiable results like adding 6 years to your life, reversing menopause or eliminating/ curing most serious illnesses. You should remember that most of these guys ( and they are mostly men) sell videos, books and supplements/ superfoods whilst one has a holistic retreat/ spa to hawk.

** Mercola, Null, Adams

Sadly, CAM has been integrated into the nursing curriculum for the entire state of North Carolina community college system via the CIP program in 2007.

How well its been integrated depends on the individual instructor. I wouldn't teach that crap in my classroom. But some of my colleagues did on a regular basis, especially when it came to acupuncture and aromatherapy.

When I was in the psych ward at St. Joe's, they once offered some kind of ridiculous ear acupuncture. I considered doing it just for the chance to get off the locked ward, but instead I said "I don't believe in that stuff" and went and made some coffee or something. (They actually let us have real coffee at the two places I was at in Michigan.)

MSM has a Trojan Horse problem because apparently it f'ed up the "nutrition, physical activity, stress reduction angles" so badly, that it even still exists as a CAM thorn, after 50-80 years of MSM and diatetic failures.

The hostile comments here to discussion on higher dose vitamin D and (IV) vitaman C show how badly various strata of MSM misunderstand some biochemical subjects and mistreat (potential) customers.

Although thin on high cost evidence, there are a number of phenomena not well addressed in MSM recognized by legitimate MDs, PhD and independent thinkering patients with as much horsepower as the average MD or better. It's that simple.

Why do I do on about C and D? Because they are amongst the better described areas historically that an outsider can even begin to technically address various issues independently and their being ignored and misstated all these years have had substantial life and death consequences throughout society.

Fix the real problems or quit bitching and go extinct as "they" occupy and displace, even if part of them create more problems.

@prn

Er, no they're hostile to the fact that people like you say that extra vitamins "Can Cure All Your Ills" and other blather like that, when in fact the only thing you're getting rid of is your money.

PRN: I think part of the hostile reaction you personally are getting is that you act like a porcupine on meth. Asking for proof isn't the same as challenging you to a duel at dawn, but you act like it is.

I'm an alumnus of two prominent medical schools (MD, residency), and it pains me to see that both offer acupuncture, chiropractic, reiki, chinese herbal medicine, and other quackery.

prn: actually, no. Modern medicine has not "f'd" up nutrition. Quacks have co-opted it and sell a load of baloney. Not the same thing.

When you can prove your claims, come back. We've pressed you again and again for EVIDENCE you never provide.

"On the “integration” of quackery into the medical school curriculum"

Do you still teach?

And no...once again, you're wrong. I'm not Travis...

Panacea, #14: the original statement has a few missing words:

Modern medicine has “f’d” up the profitability of the quackery surrounding nutrition.

Hope that helps.

LOL. Conventional "modern medical professionals" are certainly not widely known for their independent thought or creativity. To be fair, the "standard of care" binds them, in order to avoid liability. Lifespans are longer at the moment than they were a century ago, but the quality of that extended life is generally not one that people would consider desirable. And the youngest generations are not predicted to live so long, with children plagued by obesity, arthritis, diabetes, cancer, and other chronic health problems. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize better answers must be out there. Kudos to the practitioners who are willing to explore them

LOL. Conventional “modern medical professionals” are certainly not widely known for their independent thought or creativity.

BTW, Honeybunch, you might want to have your freak radio tuned into the 16th.

^ "LOL"

^^ Oh, dear, G-d, I actually again tried sitting through one of Gindo's "Wal Thornhill" videos, which exist because LIGO makes him constipated,* or something. My machine actually crashed immediately after he barfed up the axiomatic nature of Euclidean geometry.

* If anybody has the spare time, there must be a wormhole theory to be had here.

@NWO

Well you're one to talk about "independent thought" and "creativity" when all you antivax snobs parrot out the exact same lame, pathetic excuses as to why you hate science and love to pad your wallets with the money of ill-informed people.

Is it just me or do all of the antivax people here all spout their own tropes over and over ad nauseum?

Okay apparently NWO has emerged from the void to ruin another comment section

@NWO

You're one to talk about a lack of creativity when all you antivax snobs parrot out the same excuses as to why you hate science and love to ruin people's lives.

Narad: "A braver man than I.."

I'd hoped NWO had figured out she's not welcome here, but alas, she's back.

(And no, I'm not going to her site. I just got this machine working again. In case you all have been wondering, I've been using my tablet most of the week.)

As far as creativity goes, I don't think most people want creativity from their doctors. Usually, people go to a doctor because they have a problem they want resolved. And 99% of the time, a relatively straightforward solution can be found.

As long as you're here, Ginny, I still want an answer. Did any European royalty die of smallpox or other diseases? Why isn't Europe full of immortal royalty?

Kudos to the practitioners who are willing to explore them

Some people who call themselves "practitioners" are exploring by selling things to ignorant people. They're exploring, all right-- prospecting for gold.

Other people are exploring by subjecting new ideas to high standards of evidence, and sharing the ones that work with real practitioners.

I know which group of practitioners I prefer: the ones who stick to evidence-supported treatments. Even if they are boring old uncreative fuddy-duddies (which they're not).

Heyy it's NWOR, ready to ruin another post.

Ohhkay sorry for all those dumb posts my stupid computer wasn't showing that they posted and I thought they got lost in the internet void

God this is so embarrassing....

This guy is full of crap - there is hard core FACTUAL EVIDENCE of curing of degenerative diseases - INCLUDONG CANCER - with ALTERNATIVE HEALING METHODS. When did he write this article of QUACKERY? Over the last 20 years - it has been PROVEN over and over again that big pharma, FDA, medical schools and health organizations are all HAND IN HAND keeping the medical industry afloat and in business! If we get CURES for these degenerative diseases without pharmaceuticals - what happens? There is no medical industry! See, there’s no $$ to be made in LIFESTYLE changes, foods that are good for you or in Mother Earth. Why would quacks like this say anything good about what we SHOULD do to be healthy - or how to get rid of or prevent disease? If they did that, they would lose billions! To find out more - read the book POLITICS IN HEALING!!

prn@10: MSM has a Trojan Horse problem because apparently it f’ed up the “nutrition, physical activity, stress reduction angles” so badly, that it even still exists as a CAM thorn, after 50-80 years of MSM and diatetic failures.

The hostile comments here to discussion on higher dose vitamin D and (IV) vitaman C show how badly various strata of MSM misunderstand some

Panacea@14: ...Quacks have co-opted [nutrition] and sell a load of baloney. Not the same thing.

Both parts can be true.

P@14We’ve pressed you again and again for EVIDENCE you never provide
I've provided sources for overviews *of what there is*.
You're greatly biased and (a) behind.

IV vitamin C in acute disease, a subject obstructed by generations of medical biases, is largely summarized in those two books, Levy's Curing the Incurable: Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins- and McCracken's Injectable Vitamin C and the Treatments of Viral and Other Diseases although a few important papers for working hypotheses are missing.

Vitamin D3 is a (re-)emergent area, what's available is largely viewable with vitaminDwiki.com

Oh, so you admit the High Vit C crowd sells baloney? Nice to know.

I said provide evidence, not nonsense.

PRN: See my remarks re:your attitude and maybe, you might see why you're getting a "hostile reaction." It's one thing to present bad facts; its another thing entirely to present bad facts and sneer and snarl while you're doing so. Maybe drop the dukes a little and open up those ears.

PGP: Bad facts are in the eye of the beholder. I'm past trying to "prove" things to those of narrow and very dense, concrete perspectives. The problem I deal with here is to find which facts or concepts are at variance in a certain way. Sometimes I do try inject a little reality or perspective into the conversation, whether its in an FDA approved factoid or not.

Occasionally I get nice useful bits of science or history - e.g. Kerbiozen was the most frequent with his lab based experiences, sometimes Narad has useful original content that I've never seen, even when it's ad homeniem dirt on someone.

@prn

There are no such things as "bad facts", moron. You sound like those idiotic knuckleheads who came up with "alternative facts."

A fact is a fact, and just because you do not like it, or it comes from somebody/thing you do not like, does not diminish its factualness. Arrogant fluff-brain.

Epsilon, you sound like a grammer nazi that has little experience in the real world and with laboratory work. "Facts" can be very slippery things even in various technical environments due to inadequate specification, description or measurement of conditions, context, misuse, abuse, and yes, politics.

People will often quote some basic random error stats in their data when their systematic errors and biases are eating them alive by orders of magnitude larger. In fact this latter point is central to a number of disputes between CAM and MSM, with profound examples from both "sides". Whether these larger errors are merely unknown, unrecognized or (willfully?) unacknowledged is another area that often colors the conversation.

I'll go one further on the oxymoron of "bad facts":
they come in several flavors.

When, pray tell, did I ever try to correct your grammar? Yes, I did state that you were wrong, and I admit I went off a little, but I never even paid attention to your grammar. (But I will correct your spelling here: it's "grammar" not "grammer," doofus)

Another thing I will admit, unlike you, is that no, I do not have experience in medical fields or laboratory workings; I have not reached that part of my life yet.

If you are true, and there are "bad facts," then they are not facts, but lies. Also, you're one to talk about biases, so don't lecture me on them sweetie.

@Suzy

Uhh yeah there's tons of money to be sold in altie medicine. Just look at the overpriced vitamin C supplements prn is probably hawking. Look at how much money it costs to eat healthy, and how much you have to pay to get into altie "cancer treatment" clinics that are just oh-so conveniently out of the country to avoid restriction.

prn: I’m past trying to “prove” things to those of narrow and very dense, concrete perspectives. The problem I deal with here is to find which facts or concepts are at variance in a certain way.

First thing, see that second half of the first sentence? That's exactly what I mean when I was talking about your attitude and the way you come in swinging.

Secondly, you don't have any facts. You've never provided any proof of anything, and haven't managed to provide or find a single citation by anyone reputable. You just assert "these things are fact," and demand that you be taken seriously on your word alone. And you've done this for years.That's just not going to fly.

You really don't know how science works, do you?

There's no such thing as bad facts. A conclusion is either correct, or incorrect.

The sky is blue. It may vary in its shade of blue for a wide variety of factors, but it is still blue. It is not green. It is not red. It is not yellow.

prn makes a grand claim about errors of magnitude but since he NEVER gives verifiable examples of what he means by that, he takes the language of science and turns it into a Star Trek like technobabble that isn't nearly as interesting or enjoyable as Star Trek.

To a Troo Believer™ like prn, a fact is 'bad' when it differs from the imaginings [s]he desires to consider as if it were reality. 'Bad facts' are the equivalent of trump's 'fake news'.

there is hard core FACTUAL EVIDENCE of curing of degenerative diseases – INCLUDONG CANCER – with ALTERNATIVE HEALING METHODS

I'm not sure where it's going to prove useful, but I'm definitely adding it to my vocabulary.

@Narad

Maybe it's a secret term like covfefe or heel. :p

It's a portmanteau, and I've heard it used in Thailand.

@Suzy you are right. Conventional medicine sent me home to die after 20 doctor's and untold number of hospital's could not figure out I had Lyme disease.
That was in 2005. A Chiropractic Physician saved my life and correctly diagnosed my condition on the first visit.
Herbs and homeopathic remedies are true medicine.
RX drugs are just a mask or bandage on the wound.

I'm off all RX drugs and have never looked back.

In all fairness, if you get a broken bone, burst appendix or need open heart surgery then I say go to they specialist. I am not against doctor's. They have their place and are good for certain things.

Marjean: sent you home to die?

What hyperbole.

A false diagnosis of Lyme disease might be good for at least 20 followup visits to the chiro.

"Antibiotics just mask the problem dearie, you need a comprehensive set of adjustments."

Ugh, really? Physical manipulation cured your Lyme?

More like your chiro cured you of the dreaded disease called "wealth".

Worse - it was "physical manipulation" and homeopathy....which equals - "monetary manipulation."

Western Medicine is paramount for people to survive. Naturopathic Medicine is paramount for people to survive with vitality and an overall quality of life.

To negate Integrative medicine is small minded thinking. Yes, Western Medicine is groundbreaking but it’s missing ONE HUGE ingredient in it’s majority of it’s production.
PREVENTATIVE CARE.
This is because Big Pharma runs you guys and if you can’t see that then you’re either feeble minded or simply not willing to look.

So calling Naturopathic Medical Doctor’s a quackery is nothing but a cry out for your own shortcomings.

Let them bring the quality, the complimentary quality to the Western medicine world because we need it as long as you don’t offer it as a standard.

Gee, should I cancel my appointment, in about 2 weeks, for a long visit for preventative care, with a real doctor instead of a Not-a-Doctor? Should I not take the meds I take for the purpose of preventative care, since they were prescribed by a real doctor instead of an ND?
What, oh what, should I do????

Lady, this is a science blog, not the ad section of a tabloid. Go peddle your nasty snake oil elsewhere.

I hear Natural News welcomes your type. You'll love 'em. You both seem to love nature and ignoring decades of research for "treatments" that would make any respectable nurse or doctor facepalm.

Silly me. For years I've been teaching nursing students about the 3 levels of prevention. But I guess I don't know anything about that, according to Elizabeth.

Oh wait! Vaccines are prevention.

I could have sworn that naturopathy was a product of the Occident.

My doctor prescribed an update to my TDaP as a preventative measure today for a burn on my hand.
There’s a lot of skin that needs to heal and I don’t want my grandson to get pertussis!

Elizabeth: Scuse you. I just had a quarter size chunk dug out of me in the name of preventative medicine, because everyone concerned wanted to stop whatever it was cold. And every one of the medical professionals i saw was really serious about preventing any infection. No one pushed any more treatment on me than I needed. (for the record, I'm fine, no malignancy detected.)

Squirrelite: Congrats on the grand kid. We have a nib in the family, and I'm so happy I got my flu shot. (I updated my tdap before nib was born.)

John Weeks accuses Orac of having "blood on his hands" for criticizing the Samuelis' $200 million gift to UC-Irvine. Orac responds.

oracknows — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 05:00:17 +0000

John Weeks accuses Orac of having "blood on his hands" for criticizing the Samuelis' $200 million gift to UC-Irvine. Orac responds.

John Weeks has long been an activist for what is now known as "integrative medicine," earlier known as "complementary and alternative medicine"(CAM). Basically, for many years Mr. Weeks has been at the forefront of encouraging the "integration" of quackery with real medicine and promoting what I like to refer to as "quackademic medicine," a perfect term to describe the increasing encroachment of pseudoscience and quackery in medical academia in the form of—you guessed it—integrative medicine.

Despite his having zero background in scientific research or the design and execution of experiments and clinical trials, for some bizarre reason in May 2016 he was appointed editor of the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (JACM), even though he has zero background in science or medicine of a type that one would expect in a journal editor. Once there, he wasted little time comparing doctors advocating science-based medicine and opposing pseudoscience in medicine to Donald Trump.

Fast forward a year and a half, when the University of California, Irvine (UCI) accepted a $200 million gift from Susan and Henry Samueli to vastly expand the integrative medicine offerings at UCI (which were already quite extensive) in the form of establishing the Susan and Henry Samueli College of Health Sciences, with the current Susan Samueli Center for Integrative Medicine becoming the Susan Samueli Integrative Health Institute.

Amazingly, it wasn't just skeptics like Steve Novella and myself writing negative articles about this development. Michael Hiltzik of the LA Times wrote an article in which Dr. Novella and I were quoted with a lovely headline, A $200-million donation threatens to tar UC Irvine's medical school as a haven for quacks. Elsewhere, Usha Lee McFarling over at STAT News chimed in with a story with a somewhat less critical but still quite unflattering headline, A $200 million gift promotes alternative therapies at a California medical school — and critics recoil.

Both articles contrasted the claims by Dr. Howard Federoff, CEO of UC Irvine’s health system that the new institute and college will be rigorously evidence-based with the reality of the homeopathy offered by UCI. Hiltzik, amusingly, pointed out how UCI was trying to send references to homeopathy on its website down the memory hole and failing miserably. Meanwhile, Rick Seltzer at Inside Higher Ed quoted Steve Novella as he asked, Does $200 million quack? (My answer: Yes. Very loudly.) I, of course, used this observation to point out that UCI has long embraced homeopathy and that, because all naturopaths are trained in homeopathy, you can't have naturopathy without homeopathy.

Those of us who know how deeply "integrated" (couldn't resist) quackery is in naturopathy couldn't help but point out that Dr. Federoff's claim that UCI's new integrative medicine effort will be rigorously evidence-based is complete and utter bullshit unless UCI gets rid of naturopaths, at least as a start. Also, given that the Samuelis are very much believers in homeopathy, so much so that they mentioned support for research into homeopathy in one of their gift agreements with UCI in 2004, I highly doubt that UCI could dump homeopathy very easily even if Dr. Federoff wanted to.

Indeed, given Dr. Federoff's long history of integrating quackery into medicine at Georgetown, which was his gig before he moved to UCI, I doubt that Dr. Federoff is particularly serious about getting rid of the quackery, anyway. It's now too entrenched. This sort of coverage clearly enraged poor Mr. Weeks, who goes to great lengths to project a facade of civility in comparison to all the "anger" he portrays on "our" side. Indeed, his facade slipped so much that he misspelled Mr. Hiltzik's name alternatively as "Hitzig" and "Tiltzig" in a post published—where else?—that original wretched hive of scum and quackery, The Huffington Post, in the form of an article entitled Shameful Media Response to the Samueli’s Visionary $200-Million Integrative Health Investment at UC Irvine, in which he refers to critics of integrative medicine as "antiscience" and as "having blood on our hands."

You can get a taste from the introduction:

The response of the LA Times, STAT, Medpage, and most media to the visionary $200-million integrative health investment of Susan and Henry Samueli at UC Irvine has been a shameful display of media descent into Trump-like, polarizing tweets. Worse yet, the coverage has been a profoundly anti-science. These media, and others, have chosen to provide platforms to a small handful of individuals who for decades have denied the evidence of acupuncture, chiropractic, mind-body and multiple other integrative approaches.

Mr. Weeks is nothing if not predictable. These days, to him any criticism of integrative medicine is "Trump-like" and "polarizing." This is the schtick he came up with last year, before the election and continuing after it. To this recent but now familiar trope, Mr. Weeks adds a new epithet: "Anti-science." In essence, he is doing exactly what climate science denialisms and anti-vaxxers do: Try to flip the narrative and portray themselves as the true defenders of scientific inquiry and their critics as close-minded dogmatic skeptics who will not consider all the evidence.

This is, of course, nonsense when anti-vaxxers and climate science denialists do it, and it's no less ridiculous when Mr. Weeks does it. Also, note how Mr. Weeks also tries to minimize the criticism by minimizing the critics, referring to us dismissively as a "small handful of individuals," in order to portray us as being a tiny minority who can safely be ignored. Elsewhere in his article, he refers to Medscape "bleating" out a link to McFarling's article in STAT. (Get it? We're sheeple.)

Sadly, Mr. Weeks' tactics are all mind-numbingly obvious, but at this point in his jeremiad, Mr. Weeks turns out to be just getting started. It doesn't take him long to work himself into a fine lather:

From his LA Times podium, Michael Hiltzig first gives voice to David Gorski and then to Steven Novella, long-time colleagues and back-slapping companions as anti-integrative medicine vigilantes. Hiltzig quotes Gorski first, shaping the Samueli’s investment this way: “The only reason ‘integrative medicine’ exists is to integrate quackery into medicine.” Tiltzig immediately turns to Novella to use the Trumpish, name-calling term that Gorski himself favors: “In a blog post, Novella flayed UCI’s establishment of an integrative medicine curriculum as ’quackademic medicine.’”

"Back-slapping companions as anti-integrative medicine vigilantes"? I laughed out loud when I read that line. Maybe I should change the name of the blog from Respectful Insolence to Anti-Integrative Medicine Vigilante. On second thought, "Respectful Insolence" rolls off the tongue much more nicely. The whole "vigilante" charge, though, is meant to further demonize Steve and me, who slap each other on the back like dudebros after each new takedown of integrative medicine. Maybe next he'll portray us as bumping chests and shouting. (Seriously, could Mr. Weeks be any more obvious?) The answer, apparently, is no:

It would be one thing if this were just journalistic laziness. Sure, go ahead and run polarizing copy based on a tweetish view of the universe that makes a story fit for afternoon TV. In fact, however, these media have chosen to trumpet fake news. They promote this polarizing grandstanding rather than honor the emerging scientific consensus that is yet poorly integrated into health professional education and practice - and that utterly backs the Samuelis’ investment and direction at UC Irvine:

He then cites four references that actually show how deeply embedded quackery has become in medicine, thanks to the efforts of people like Mr. Weeks. For instance, he mentions the Joint Commission's 2015 revision of its pain management standard that recommends nonpharmacologic approaches to pain, and mentions acupuncture, chiropractic, and osteopathic manipulation. Now, I've discussed many times before how integrative medicine mavens have latched on to the opioid crisis as an opportunity to expand their influence by rebranding CAM/integrative medicine as "nonpharmacologic approaches to pain." Indeed, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Medicine (NCCIH) enshrined this in its 2016-2021 strategic plan.

Ever since the opioid crisis inserted itself into the national consciousness, proponents of integrative medicine have seen a golden opportunity to use it to further the integration of quackery into medicine. Only they want to be seen as science-based; so when programs like the one at UCI are caught advertising The One Quackery To Rule Them All, homeopathy, they scramble to hide the evidence of it. Mr. Weeks makes a great show of mentioning guidelines published by the Mayo Clinic, which, if anything, showed that the "complementary" approaches to pain examined do not have an effect greater than placebo.

Truly, it was an awful review article. Predictably, he also mentioned American College of Physicians guidelines for low back pain. I can't help but note that those recommendations characterized evidence base for acupuncture, for example, as low quality evidence, moderate at best, and cited the GERAC Study, which basically showed that acupuncture does not work. Another mixed "electroacupuncture" (which is basically TENS) with acupuncture. Truly this was thin gruel for the ACP. Finally, he referred to the National Academy of Medicine's review on nonpharmacological approaches to pain. I perused it. It misrepresents the evidence base for acupuncture in a far too favorable a fashion, for instance claiming that recent "reviews and meta-analyses examining the effect of acupuncture on musculoskeletal pain (neck and back pain, osteoarthritis, chronic headache and shoulder pain, fibromyalgia) have found that overall, acupuncture is superior to sham and no acupuncture, but with relatively modest differences between true and sham acupuncture."

Yes, the NAM cited the Vickers meta-analysis, which showed that acupuncture doesn't work, with no clinically significant effect on pain, although the conclusion was spun to be the exact opposite. Yes, Mr. Weeks is doing what any "thought leader" in integrative medicine has to do: Exaggerate or even misrepresent the evidence base supporting the quackery that integrative medicine is seeking to add to medicine.

Up until now, Mr. Weeks didn't actually piss me off. Rather, he amused me, as he recycled the same tired, dubious arguments that he's always used, complete with his dismissive comparison of critics of integrative medicine to Donald Trump, which he's now done so often that to me it's a cliché. Indeed, I'm half tempted to make a drinking game out of Mr. Weeks' references to Donald Trump as a means of denigrating his opponents: Take a drink each time he compares our writing to Trump or to Tweets. The only problem is that I'd probably be at risk for alcohol poisoning if I were to play that game.

Here's where Mr. Weeks actually managed to piss me off. It's hard for an apologist for quackery to do, but Mr. Weeks managed it:

The roundhouse, condemnatory, “quackademic” perspectives of Gorski, Novella, Caulfield and their like toward complementary and integrative health and medicine need to be treated and dismissed by the LA Times and others as the anti-science that they are. Sure, discussion can be engaged over specific approaches or therapies. Yet giving a platform to this broad dismissal of the Sameulis’ investment is no different than repeatedly quoting non-believers in climate change at the top of an article about a massive, exciting effort to correct human environmental degradation. And while the scale is different, both forms of science denial have blood on their hands. The residual, reactive, medical ideology of these anti-integrative careerists to which the LA Times and others give a platform is a barrier to potentially lifesaving directions toward which the Joint Commission-Mayo/NIH-American College of Physicians-NAM-Attorneys General jointly urge us - and the Samueli investment would propel us.

Fuck you, Mr. Weeks. Longtime readers know that I pretty much never drop the F-bomb on this blog other than when quoting others, such as Jenny McCarthy's famous quote about the MMR and autism. In this rare case, however, I think an exception to that rule is more than justified. When you accuse Steve Novella, Tim Caulfield, me, and those who make the same arguments as we do of having "blood on our hands," telling you to fuck off is the only appropriate reaction.

We're doctors. Mr. Weeks is not. We save lives. Mr. Weeks does not. I'm a medical researcher. Mr. Weeks is not.

I can deal with his unwarranted attacks on us as "antiscience." I can laugh at them, even. I know we have the data, the science, and reason on our side. Also, contrary to how we are portrayed, we do not dismiss massage, mindfulness, exercise, diet, or other lifestyle aspects of integrative medicine. We merely point out that they are more appropriately a part of science-based medicine and that integrative medicine is "rebranding" them as somehow being "alternative" or "integrative" and then throwing in quackery like acupuncture, reiki, naturopathy, and the like. The purpose, of course, is to legitimize quackery.

That's why I say that there is no reason for integrative medicine to exist other than to provide a vessel through which quackery can be integrated into medicine. As for being an "anti-integrative medicine careerist," I view this as a thinly disguised variant of the "pharma shill" gambit, in which Mr. Weeks insinuates that we must be biased because we've made a career out of being "anti-integrative medicine." Would this sort of thing were even possible! Seriously, though, Mr. Weeks should look at my publication record. Only two of my publications indexed on PubMed can be characterized as even being about integrative medicine. However, Mr. Weeks' little tirade has med me think that maybe I should try much harder to publish more of this in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The reason I haven't is because I'm not an "anti-integrative medicine careerist." Maybe I should become one, except that I'd call it being a pro-science careerist.

To get an idea of where Mr. Weeks comes from, he repeats a number of anti-medicine tropes. For instance, he does his best to paint critics of integrative medicine as a discipline as not caring about prevention. That's an old chestnut, because integrative medicine proponents have tried very hard to rebrand any sort of interventions to prevent disease as their bailiwick. He also cites a BMJ paper concluding that medical errors result in 251,000 deaths per year and are the third largest cause of death in the US, clearly having selected that particular paper because it has one of the largest numbers of deaths estimated anywhere in the literature. (Über-quacks Mike Adams, Gary Null, and Joe Mercola would be proud.)

As I pointed out when this study was published in 2016, the methodology used to calculate this number was highly questionable, at best, and basically custom-designed to inflate the number of deaths due to medical error, particularly through misattribution of the cause; i.e., mischaracterization of complications that had nothing to do with medical error as being due to error. Mr. Weeks then defends the poor, put-upon Samuelis as being philanthropists of the highest order, listing their charitable donations over the last two decades. No one is denying that the Samuelis have made worthwhile charitable donations over the last 25 years. It is not those particular donations that I and people like Steve Novella and Tim Caulfield have a problem with.

Rather, it is the Samuelis' repeated donations in the cause of furthering integrative medicine that we criticize. Remember, as has been pointed out in multiple articles, the Samuelis are true believers in The One Quackery To Rule Them All, homeopathy. Does Mr. Weeks think that homeopathy is science-based? I'm sorry, but you cannot credibly claim the mantle of science if you believe in homeopathy. Period. You just can't. You can try, but you will be called out, even laughed at—and deservedly so. Homeopathy is quackery based on concepts of vitalism and sympathetic magic.

Mr. Weeks concludes:

Reporters: stop giving a platform to anti-science. Do us all a favor and get serious, and scientific, about your reporting of an investment of the Samuelis at UC Irvine that - despite this apparently necessary stone throwing - may prove to be the most influential philanthropic investment in the substantial course correction that US academic medicine and medical industry need.

Actually, that's what I'm afraid of, that the Samueli investment will be the most influential philanthropic donation in medicine. I agree that reporters should stop giving a platform to antiscience. What that means is not at all what Mr. Weeks thinks it means. As much as he thinks otherwise, it is he who is promoting antiscience. Indeed, the reporting on the Samueli donation represents one of the times that the mainstream press that bothered to pay attention to this story actually got it mostly right about integrative medicine. Mr. Weeks doesn't like this, not one bit. That's why he's lashing out now.

oracknows Fri, 09/29/2017 - 01:00

Categories

Education

As a science-based physician who has done research, I will also say "fuck you" to Mr. Weeks for his accusation that you have "blood on your hands" along with all the other anti-science and anti-medicine bullshit he spouts in his Huff-Po screed.

Do quacks bleed when a potential source of revenue is squeezed? If true, you'd have to grab them by the purse to have "blood on your hands".

I, too, will join in the fuck youing.

I am not a doctor or a researcher. I did pass my grade school chemistry class. I still am baffled how anyone else who has taken even the most basic class in chemistry can accept homeopathy as a science.

Orac writes,

We’re doctors. Mr. Weeks is not. We save lives. Mr. Weeks does not. I’m a medical researcher. Mr. Weeks is not. I can deal with his unwarranted attacks on us as “antiscience.” I can laugh at them, even. I know we have the data, the science, and reason on our side.

MJD says,

Q. What do Orac and Col. Nathan R. Jessup have in common.

A. They're a few good men.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hopNAI8Pefg

Mr. Weeks has a lot of nerve accusing anyone of journalistic laziness when he misspells the name of the journalist he's criticizing not once, but twice. Within the same paragraph, no less.

What idiot made him the editor of a journal? Part of an editor's job is to spot and correct errors like that.

While Orac and Chris are rightly irritated by the "blood on their hands" comment, I would point out Weeks only went there because his argument is otherwise so weak as to be nonexistent. He has to resort to hyperbole to get any traction.

Pathetic.

Mr. Weeks has a lot of nerve accusing anyone of journalistic laziness when he misspells the name of the journalist he’s criticizing not once, but twice. Within the same paragraph, no less.

And with two DIFFERENT misspellings, no less. I mean, I know I make a fair number of typos (you try cranking out 2,000 words a day in your spare time and not making typos), but Weeks is a frikkin' EDITOR.

Also, which may be quite telling, is the fact that Mr. Weeks was the AANP's first "Exective Director", and that may fit well with the observations above regarding what I often term a 'reversal of values.'

After all, it is naturopathy by way of the AANP that still quite falsely terms homeopathy a "medicinal science."

So if you like physics and vectors, if "science" is the actual value, what we have in Mr. Weeks is deviation and indistinction:

"-science".

-r.c.

There is a profound difference between Trump and those criticized by Weeks. Pretty much all available evidence demonstrates that Trump is profoundly ignorant about nearly everything. Orac et al actually know things.

I have a suggestion for a title for a regular "column" by Weeks: Weeks Sauce.

Despite his having zero background in scientific research or the design and execution of experiments and clinical trials

More likely, because, not despite. Their publication couldn't survive a pro-science bias.

Here is an open challenge to this Mr. Weeks:

We will inject you with the rabies virus. You have two choices: 1. Follow the science based cure and get the rabies vaccine or 2. Follow the homeopathy/naturopathy cure method(s).

I can bet which choice you will make. Choice 2 leaves you dead, choice 1 will let you live.

I won't say F/U to you because the time and effort with no pleasure wouldn't be worth it. Crawl back into some dark corner and continue to play with yourself. Unfortunately you are proof that the Peter Principle isn't true, you have raised way beyond your competency.

What does Mr. Weeks say about using alternative medicine for cancer? (If he wants to talk about the effects on saving people's lives).

I'd be very surprised if he speaks up against them. I'll try to run a search after teaching.

They’re a few good men.

Yeah, but you think Vinu is a good person, so it's obvious you don't understand the concept.

Johnny
The Bad One

The misspellings and lack of eighth-grade-level copy editing should have consigned this little rant to the round file. I stopped reading HuffPo years ago when it lost its editorial direction, but this kind of sloppiness is inexcusable in something that still has such a large audience. I'm almost as disappointed that the mainstream press is providing cover for his ridiculous false-balance argument. Who reads his journal? Is it indexed anywhere? Who's paying for it? A supplement manufacturer? A woo peddler? Is anyone asking those questions? There are hundreds/thousands of garbage/front journals. Why give a garbage journal editor any voice at all?

To give Weeks credit, "anti-integrative medicine vigilante" is a bit more creative than "polarization-based medicine bloggers", a term he used in the course of this outpouring of verbal diarrhea:

https://www.integrativepractitioner.com/whats-new/all-news/april-2015-j…

I suspect part of his angst stems from Orac's lack of respect for NDs (Weeks is married to one).

Climate-change denialist? Wait till he calls you a holocaust denialist.

What idiot made him the editor of a journal? Part of an editor’s job is to spot and correct errors like that.

That's not the job of an EIC. I have no idea whether the new SnuffPo has putative comma jockeys (PLOS doesn't), but even copyeditors need copyediting. On the other hand, the misspellings could be deliberate.

. . . On the other hand, the misspellings could be deliberate.

And therefore juvenile, at best.

@ Johnny (#12),

No, I think Vinu is a "great" person based on creativity and effort.

You (Johnny) are also a "great" person based on creativity and effort.

Therefore, you have fallen off the top100 list of Orac's minions:

98) helpmeplease
99) Willtodie
100) David Corcos
101) Johnny

After twenty years of steering clear of the subject, Weeks struggles mightily to keep both buttocks on the middle of the fence when considering "the most sacred of cows in U.S. medicine".
https://www.integrativepractitioner.com/whats-new/all-news/furies-vacci…

Pusillanimous ignorant creep.

@doug #8: LOL. I broke Rule #1.

@Narad: It actually is the EIC's job, the buck stops with him. But I'll grant you, the role has become much more ceremonial than it used to be, which probably explains the declining quality of print publications in general nowadays.

MJD: no one is fooled by your pathetic attempts to suck up.

In other news: Tom Price has resigned...

No loss. Though, at this rate the Orange Cheeto will have to replace his entire cabinet, and he hasn't even been in office a full year yet.

The bonus is, Price is out of Congress for at least a couple of years.

You round-earth fanatics are so polarising with your refusal to even consider the flat-earth evidence. What is wrong with an integrative approach that combines the complementary aspects of both cosmologies?

MJD,

Therefore, you have fallen off the top100 list of Orac’s minions

You actually keep tabs of Orac's minion?!?!

@ herr doktor bimler (#24),

You Schwarzbier fanatics are so polarising with your refusal to consider Dunkel.

Friday night cheers, cosmological friend!

Alain (#25) asks,

You actually keep tabs of Orac’s minion?!?!

MJD says,

I certainly do, the list has grown considerably over the last seven years.

You (Alain) have moved up on the list (#97) due to Johnny's Orac-less disposition lately.

Congratulations Alain!

Pgp, don't be too hard on MJD. His posts help me keep "obsequious" on the tip of my tongue - with "simpering", 'sappy' and other s-words slightly astern. Alas "exsanguinated sequoia" images intrude into my imagination. Irritating.
Don't let his lame litter lead to lament - Rubus replies recommended.

I have a quarter-inch diameter canker sore on my uvula.

In misery, please recommend a science-based treatment.

I've tried hydrogen peroxide and chloraseptic (1.4% phenol) but continue to suffer.

Please advise...

Orac, this article reads as if it were a guest posting by your and our esteemed 'friend', Dr Gorski, rather than by our revered blinky-light box.

So, I did some googling. Weeks is basically self taught, no degree, somehow worked his way to editing an alternative health journal, runs an alternative health blog, and is married to a naturopath? How did he get to the "forefront of encouraging the “integration” of quackery with real medicine?"

This is one of my problems with the alternative health industry - what Dr Offit calls the "false prophets."

UCI, which is my alma mater, will lend respectability to alt health with this donation, Weeks is right. That is a real shame. I wish there was some way for them to turn this down and stick to good science.

What do the Samuelis have that wins such devoted defenders? $200 million to give away! That's all you need to know.

I’ll grant you, the role has become much more ceremonial than it used to be, which probably explains the declining quality of print publications in general nowadays

EICs haven't been proofreaders in nearly half a century. Please don't try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.

It's not only $200-million. It's a visionary $200-million investment!
And you can same the same visionary investment in ludicrous high-tech precision medicine. When quackery triumphs, it means that there is no hope for the patient.

sorry, you should read;
you can MAKE the same

For the Washington Post, or JAMA, I'll agree with that.

For small, serious journals with small budgets, nope. The EIC is still involved in the process.

Believe me, I learned this the hard way when I published in a small journal earlier this year. They still managed to leave in errors I told them to correct after I reviewed the galley proofs.

I'm afraid that I do have to agree with Weeks on one thing. Ant-Science screeds should never get the coverage in the media that they do. False balance has done more to harm science education and policy in North America than just about anything else. But if a policy to ban that was put into effect, Weeks would be ranting about censorship.

I really wish our anti-hate laws could be used to keep the NDs from advertising in Dr COS-play dress in Ontario. It does serve to remind me why I don't watch broadcast television.

@28 Doug: You forgot moronic and imbecilic, both highly appropriate when referring to MJD.

Anonymous Pseudonym (#35) writes,

You forgot moronic and imbecilic, both highly appropriate when referring to MJD.

MJD says,

I found some relief from the canker sore on my uvula (comment #29) and it comes from an article in Reader's Digest.

https://www.rd.com/health/wellness/stop-canker-sore-pain/

I thought about going to the doctor but a Google search presented an article with a multiplicity of natural remedies described above in the Reader's Digest article.

I saved a lot of $ by avoiding the doctor and continue to be thankful, in some situations, that there are alternatives to science-based medicine.

Big thanks to Google and artificial intelligence.

Schwartzbier is #FAKEBIER created by liberals.

Schwartzbier is #FAKEBIER created by liberals.

It's no Apex Predator, but I'll take a $4.99 four-pack of Köstritzer happily.

Believe me, I learned this the hard way when I published in a small journal earlier this year. They still managed to leave in errors I told them to correct after I reviewed the galley proofs.

And this demonstrates that the EIC is also the Comma Jockey in Chief how, exactly?

Orac IS an "anti-integrative medicine vigilante", a badge methinks he wears with pride. So what Orac doesn't get into is how much division and contention there is within the rubric of IM. Weeks isn't just an IM propagandist. He's a propagandist for the worst sorts of IM. He's not out to legitimate what Orac calls "quackademic medicine". TPTB there (places like Mayo) don't need him, and probably don't want him either. He's out to legitimate IM as a specialty practiced by autonomous individual providers – in essence re-branding the neighborhood naturo-quack. This is far different from and vastly more expansive than what the "quackademic" programs do – a good number of which limit the CAM to a few 'modalities' employed for pain management and supportive therapy (in which placebos are actually useful), and all that I know of have any CAM providers working under and limited by qualified MDs.

This is NOT what Weeks wants. Or should I say it's not what the grifters he shills for want. He makes his living by representing alt-med companies and interest groups. And for this cabal, IM isn't about helping folks get through chemo or distracting them from musculo-skeletal pain rather than dosing them with opiods. No, it's all about "prevention"! or IOW supplement scams. Weeks being in bed with firms like XYMOGEN which pile a variety of shady business practices on top of manufacturing dubious products to begin with.

I don't buy that he's genuinely outraged and offended by Orac's critique of UCI on principle. His attempt to run a Turdblossom on 'anti-science' is transparently calculated and cynical. My bet is he's trying to use the controversy Orac and Novella have generated for his own agenda and/or his clients' agendas. Maybe he's trying to ingratiate himself with an institution that now has $200 million to spend. Maybe he hopes to pull the new UCI program into an even quackier direction. Maybe he just wants to use the prestige of the UC system to promote legitimacy for his own brand of IM, as if they were the same thing. Which they're not, no matter that Orac may find both unacceptable...

There are two editors for the journal. Both have equal responsibility for all aspects of publication. It's a really small, new journal that publishes once a year. My article came out in Issue 2.

Yes, it's peer reviewed. No, it's not a predatory journal (it's sponsored by my university). But the editors actually have to edit.

Hey, MJD, here’s a poem for your next book -
*Not safe for work*
https://youtu.be/HhGuXCuDb1U

And try as I like, a small crack appears in my diplomacy-dike.
"By definition", I begin,
"Alternative Medicine", I continue,
"Has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work.
Do you know what they call 'alternative medicine' that's been proved to work?
Medicine."

@Johnny (#44),

When science-based medicine fails, hope is clearly derailed.
When 'alternative medicine' fails, a hope silently prevails.
When all else fails, there is no hope.

The canker sore on my uvula is waning (comment #38), I'm hopeful that the use of natural remedies made a difference.

@ 42 Panacea

But the editors actually have to edit.

Clearly your business model needs some fine tuning.

http://deevybee.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-ice-with-buxom-grapefruits…

I believe the poem MJD provided is by the acclaimed British poet Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings of 37 Wasp Villas, Greenbridge, Essex, GB10 1LL.

@ Johnny (#47),

Allow me to add a condescending enhancement with respectfully-insolent intent:

When science-based medicine fails, hope is clearly derailed.
When ‘alternative medicine’ fails, a hope silently prevails.
When all else fails, there is no hope you DOPE.

Paula N. M. Jennings can't take credit for that, Johnny. :-)

@jrkrideau: I guess I'm having an Aspie moment. I'm not sure what you mean to say with your link.

@49 Panacea

Editors are supposed to charge "page fees" not read the paper!

Title of paper:
[b]Breaking the ice with buxom grapefruits: Pratiques de publication and predatory publishing [/b]

In this case, it does not appear that anyone even read the title. And in this case the "editor" did not even get the cash.

Oh, silly me!

Heaven forfend there actually be any editing.

When science-based medicine fails, hope is clearly derailed.

Something something Jesse Fuller something.

Johnny:Snicker. It's hilarious to me that neither MJD or NWO read books, despite both of them being older than me. Well, supposedly in NWO's case, as I'm not convinced they aren't actually a twelve-year-old.

David Brin, who I find always worth reading even when I don't agree with him (https://davidbrin.blogspot.com/) speaks of there being a war against the fact-using professions, and I think this is just another example of that.
I can't describe it as well as he does, so go read him.

I'm trying to picture the respectable Dr. Gorski and Dr. Novella bumping chests and shouting. I think that would be a perfect way to commemorate next years 10 yr NECSS anniversary! :)

Kat -- D'you think they could get Dr Lance O'Sullivan teach them how to do a haka? That would be awesome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W235oVNy2bs

May I suggest The rock if Dr O'Su,llivan is not available?

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7E3Sph45z8?rel=0&w=560&h=315]

Which one gets to wear the pink, Gorski or Novella?

Integrative medicine is trying to hitch a ride on the coattails of actual medicine. I'm reminded of a con artist who wants credit for mixing an occasional truth in with his lies.

MJD,

May I suggest a hydrochloric acid throat gargle. That should get rid of your canker together with your entire uvula, tongue, throat, and the ability to speak. A marked improvement you'd have to agree.

Billyjoe: Careful there. MJD's dumb enough to actually do that.

Actually, since simple canker sores typically heal by themselves in about a week,
https://www.webmd.com/oral-health/guide/canker-sores#1

it's quite likely that any alternative treatment MJD uses will "work".

Acids are not recommended, though.

It's been five days, so how is your sore doing, Michael?

Have you visited your dentist? I'll probably need to see mine soon myself.

You know what you are? You are an anti-integrative medicine careerist and a big pharma shill.

Yawn:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/02/14/the-pharma-shill-gambit/

Homeopathy at UC-Irvine: The administration can run but it can't hide from its history of embracing quackery

oracknows — Tue, 26 Sep 2017 04:01:40 +0000

Homeopathy at UC-Irvine: The administration can run but it can't hide from its history of embracing quackery

Last week, the University of California, Irvine (UCI) announced that Susan and Henry Samueli were donating $200 million for it to set up a massive new integrative medicine initiative. The plan would basically transform biomedical sciences and medical education at UCI—and not in a good way.

Remember what "integrative medicine" is. What is being "integrated" into medicine is, of course, quackery. Oh, sure, integrative medicine also emphasizes lifestyle modification, such as diet and exercise, but that is part of "conventional medicine" already.

There is no good scientific or medical rationale for a separate specialty devoted to just that. What integrative medicine does is that it rebrands perfectly science-based modalities, such as diet and exercise, as somehow "alternative" and then "integrates" quackery, like naturopathy, acupuncture, functional medicine, applied kinesiology, homeopathy, and basically any form of quackery you can think of. Without the quackery, there is no integrative medicine.

Worse, the phenomenon has resulted in a most pernicious effect in medical academia, the infiltration of outright quackery into the research and education efforts there, a phenomenon I like to refer to as "quackademic medicine."

Of course, The Very Serious Academics In Very Serious White Coats who have come to believe in integrative medicine to the point of devoting their careers to it would vehemently disagree with my characterization. I'm referring to the sort of doctors who present at conferences of learned academics and write what they claim to be evidence-based care guidelines for breast cancer patients. Perhaps the best thing to mention to rile up serious academic advocates of integrative medicine is homeopathy. Any mention of homeopathy is guaranteed provoke paroxysms of self-righteous denial.

"Oh, no," they'll say, "homeopathy is pseudoscience! It's quackery. Integrative medicine is evidence-based, and we would never do anything that isn't evidence-based!" Sadly, as I've pointed out time and time again, you can't have naturopathy without homeopathy, as homeopathy is an integral part of naturopathy. As long as you have naturopaths, you will have homeopathy. Oddly enough, many of these The Very Serious Academics In Very Serious White Coats are utterly oblivious to this simple fact, even ones who write Very Serious Clinical Guidelines with naturopaths and welcome naturopaths into their Very Serious Medical Society.

ll of this brings me back to UCI, because yesterday there was a story by Michael Hiltzik for the LA Times about this very phenomenon. Well, not exactly. Rather, it's about the relationship between UCI and homeopathy and how UCI seems rather—shall we say?—touchy about the subject:

As of late last week, visitors to the website of UC Irvine Health, that institution’s clinical arm, could learn that among its services to patients was “homeopathy.” That was a problem, because homeopathy is a discredited and thoroughly debunked “alternative medicine.” Even Howard Federoff, UCI’s vice chancellor for health affairs, agreed that the scientific basis for homeopathy was “lacking.” The issue is important because the donors of a $200-million gift to UCI’s medical schools, the billionaire couple Susan and Henry Samueli, are sworn believers in homeopathy and supporters of a raft of other “integrative” health treatments. As I reported, some medical authorities have raised questions about whether the Samuelis’ beliefs and their rare generosity will undermine UCI’s explicit commitment to science-based medicine. So it’s interesting that after I raised questions about the treatment’s listing on the website, it mysteriously disappeared. As of this writing, a UCI spokesman hasn’t gotten back to me with word on when it was removed, or whether its removal means that homeopathy no longer will be offered to patients, or merely that UCI is keeping it quiet. The listing was present as recently as last Wednesday, when I asked Federoff about it in connection with my column about the Samueli gift, which appeared online Friday; its presence can be seen on an archived version of the website dated Sept. 19.

Ah, yes. The light of national attention due to the Samuelis' enormous donation to promote pseudoscience must have rattled UCI. After all, even the most avid proponents of integrative medicine are profoundly uncomfortable with homeopathy, even Dr. David Katz, whose "more fluid concept of evidence" led him to try homeopathy in a patient.

That's because homeopathy is quackery.

Indeed, there's a reason I routinely refer to homeopathy as The One Quackery To Rule Them All. To recap, homeopathy is based on two laws. One states that to treat a symptom you use something that causes that symptom. The other states that a homeopathic remedy becomes stronger with dilution. Neither are based in evidence. Indeed, many homeopathic remedies are 30C or greater in dilution, where C is a 100-fold dilution. Thus 30C means diluting the solution 100-fold thirty times, which results in a dilution of 10^-60.

Given that Avogadro's number is on the order of 6 x 10²³, a 30C dilution is more than 10³⁶-fold greater, which means that it's incredibly unlikely that a single molecule of original remedy remains. Most homeopathic remedies are just water or ethanol diluent. Even the most die-hard advocate of quackademic and integrative medicine has to admit that, which is why even they are so uncomfortable when homeopathy is brought up and so loudly and self-righteously deny that integrative medicine would ever have anything to do with homeopathy.

Amusingly, Hiltzik noted a web page that looked very, very familiar to me, that of Dayna Kowata, ND, LAc. Yes, she's a naturopath and acupuncturist. She also expresses an interest in homeopathy. What's so familiar about Not-a-Dr. Kowata? Well, I used her UCI webpage in talks about quackademic medicine several years ago, and I've even mentioned her on two different occasions on this very blog, albeit not by name. At the time, I didn't know that Susan Samueli is strong believer in homeopathy, but I do now.

I wonder what Ms. Samueli will think if Dr. Federoff actually does eliminate homeopathy from UCI. I rather suspect that she won't be happy. I particularly wonder this based on the original gift agreements between the Samuelis and UCI when the Samuelis first founded the Susan Samueli Center for Integrative Medicine (SSCIM) at UCI. The original gift was $20 million in 1999. Now here's where it gets interesting. In 2003, the board of directors of the Samueli Center was formally founded in the UCI College of Medicine.

You can read the whole thing if you like, but this is the key paragraph:

The proposed Center will build on the considerable knowledge and experience of its faculty to study the efficacy of various therapeutic modalities considered to be part of complementary and alternative medicine, including herbs and homeopathic medicine, as they relate to areas such as cardiovascular, autoimmune and neuromuscular diseases, cancer treatment and prevention; and menopaus and ageing. In addition, the proposed center will foster UCI's emergence as a leader in the area of acupuncture by supporting basic and clinical research into the mechanism of action and the efficacy of acupunctxure as a modality. The proposed Center will encourage and foster multidisciplinary studies that involve appropriate faculty from across the campus as well as from other institutions.

That's right. Homeopathy was baked into the Samueli Center from near the very beginning. I can't help but wonder what would be found in the formal gift agreement for the Samuelis' $200 million donation. Perhaps a Freedom of Information Act request would shed some illumination on this question. On the other hand, I note that homeopathy was only mentioned in one of the gift agreements.

Perhaps then, as now, UCI and the Samuelis learned that homeopathy brought too much embarrassment to the university—and rightly so—and that's why homeopathy hasn't been mentioned in any of the Samuelis' gift agreements since 2003. Alternatively, most of the gift agreements after that had to do with setting up fellowships and endowed chairs and gave UCI administration the latitude to use the gifts for whatever purposes it judged most consistent with the wishes of the donors.

Contrary to what Dr. Federoff claims, quackery is deeply embedded at UCI. It's the raison d'être for the SSCIM. He might be in denial about it, but it's true. That's why I was amused to read Hiltzik's observation:

The on-again-off-again appearance of homeopathy on UCI’s website and among its clinical offerings underscores the difficulties the university may face in navigating the inconsistencies between the world view of its biggest donors and its explicit commitment to rigorous scientific standards in its medical teaching, research, and clinical treatment. The Samuelis, after all, will have their names on UCI’s main on-campus medical building, and their gift will endow up to 15 faculty members, all of whom will have to demonstrate some “expertise in integrative health.” We reported over the weekend that “integrative health” is interpreted by many in the medical profession as code for introducing unproven and debunked nostrums into a curriculum that should be based exclusively on scientific evidence. Although Federoff says science will govern at UCI, that hasn’t necessarily been the case at the Susan Samieli Center, which was established in 2001 with a $5.7-million donation from the couple and will be converted into the Susan Samueli Integrative Health Institute and absorbed into the university’s entire medical complex under the terms of the gift.

I can't help but note that Dr. Federoff came to UCI from Georgetown University. Why is that significant? Georgetown was one of the "pioneers" (if you will) in quackademic medicine. Basically, Georgetown was the first to "integrate" quackery into all phases of medical education beginning in the first year of medical school, with acupuncturists giving lectures in gross anatomy class. I kid you not.

By the time Dr. Federoff left Georgetown in 2015, quackademia reigned supreme at Georgetown, even to the point where Georgetown credulously teaches homeopathy to its medical students. Dr. Federoff was there when it began and took hold. You'll pardon me if I call bullshit on his claims that the SSCIM will be rigorously based in science. It won't. That's not what the donors want, and that's not what the culture at UCI will support.

Thanks to the Samuelis and the credulous culture they have built at UCI and fueled by the enormous $200 million gift given by the Samuelis, quackademic medicine will reign more supreme than ever at UCI and serve as an example for the metastasis of the cancer that is integrative medicine.

oracknows Tue, 09/26/2017 - 00:01

Categories

Education

I wonder what she will think if Dr. Federoff actually does eliminate homeopathy from UCI.

He's just diluting the curriculum to make it more effective.

I always find it stunning that someone can have a very scientific mind and have invented/patented multiple devices of incredible complexity and then turn around and buy into something as ridiculously stupid as homeopathy. But smart in one area never means smart in all areas.

"smart in one area never means smart in all areas."

Just can't leave Ben Carson alone, huh?

Wait, they're going to use homeopathy to treat heart disease, cancer and autoimmune diseases? That's what they're saying?

Chris Hickie (#2) writes

But smart in one area never means smart in all areas.

MJD says,

But, being creative (i.e., invented/patented) in one area often means creative in other areas.

It appears Henry Samueli is simply being creative with his $ based on the love and affection he has for his wife.

Remember the Taj Mahal?

It was commissioned in 1632 by the Mughal emperor, Shah Jahan (reigned 1628–1658), to house the tomb of his favourite wife, Mumtaz Mahal.

The Taj Mahal didn't change world architecture and, in parallel, UCI's $200 million from Mr. Samueli will not change science-based medicine.

@ Orac,

Stop whining and let it play out.

MJD: The Taj Mahal didn’t change world architecture.

Oh man, every time I think you can't be more wrong, you prove me wrong. Obviously, you've never been to Southeast Asia. Or seen a Russian orthodox church. Or Aladdin.

"UCI’s $200 million from Mr. Samueli will not change science-based medicine."

That's about as ridiculous as saying that Russia has no influence in the US. Do you know where doctors come from? Medical schools. If one medical school is teaching inaccurate and just plain bad medicine, the practice will spread to other medical schools and hospitals. California already has a huge problem with quacks and people who abandoned their medical degrees (see "Dr" Gordon and "Dr" Sears.) So no, Orac can't just let this one 'play out.'

PGP writes,

So no, Orac can’t just let this one ‘play out.’

MJD says,

If Orac wants to confront Dr. Gordon and Dr. Sears that's fair.

But, the billionaire couple Susan and Henry Samueli are NOT medical professionals and can most definitely be appreciated for their charitable contributions to UCI.

@ Orac,

If UCI made a disclaimer that homeopathy is intended to be researched as a supplementary-treatment would you back off?

In the spirit of freedom-of-choice, homeopathic medicine may have a theatrical placebo effect that may improve the quality-of-life for some individuals dealing with science-based medicine.

I wonder if UCI will apply homeopathy methods for teaching their med students. Think how fast you can turn out docs if you dilute each course by 30c. I think they may need to start with a blood sample from a real doctor before they begin their dilutions.

I can just see the RonCo knock-off: Become a MD for only 49.95 but wait if you order right now get the second one for only process and handling.

Wandering in from my respite...

PGP: " Every time I think that you can't be more wrong, you prove me wrong"

Agreed.

Srsly, MJD telling Orac to "stop whining" truly illustrates self unawareness at its most ironic
.
It's like Mike Adams bemoaning the current state of education
or AoA's Managing Editor discussing poor writing or Jake Crosby investigating anything

MJD: But, the billionaire couple Susan and Henry Samueli are NOT medical professionals and can most definitely be appreciated for their charitable contributions to UCI. "

Nope. Still wrong. If they'd donated a no-strings attached gift to UC Irvine, that'd have been fine and no one would find fault with them. Unfortunately their "gift" came with more strings attached than you'd find on the entire Muppet cast of Sesame Street.

What a ridiculous article. Everything is prejudged and makes mockery of basic human knowledge. Pharna lobby seeing a danger to its business is out in the open.

@Ash

Oh, to be blissfuly clothed in the raiments of ignorance.

"If UCI made a disclaimer that homeopathy is intended to be researched as a supplementary-treatment would you back off?"

I hope not - nobody should, since the fact that homeopathy is discredited means there is no evidence that it benefits anyone except the quacks who practice it and pocket the checks. People who understand science and reality understand that. Given your history of comments it's no surprise that you don't understand it.

Ash: "Everything is prejudged and makes mockery of basic human knowledge."

What basic human knowledge? A couple of big pharmaceutical companies are Boiron and Hylands. You may have actually bought some of their special little pills in the tiny bottles. So to save from the tyranny of supporting Big Homeopath Pharm, I present you this way to make your own:

Recipe for Nat Mur or Natrum Mur or Natrium Mur or Natrum muriaticum:

1) Take ½ teaspoon of sea salt and dissolve into 1 cup of distilled water in a bottle.

2) Shake well.

3) This is a 1C solution (ratio 1/100).

4) Take ½ teaspoon of the 1C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 1C solution.

5) Shake well.

6) This is a 2C solution (ratio 1/10000).

7) Take ½ teaspoon of the 2C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 2C solution.

8) Shake well.

9) This is a 3C solution (ratio 1/1000000).

10) Take ½ teaspoon of the 3C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 3C solution.

11) Shake well.

12) This is a 4C solution (ratio 1/100000000).

13) Take ½ teaspoon of the 4C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 4C solution.

14) Shake well.

15) This is a 5C solution (ratio 1/10000000000).

16) Take ½ teaspoon of the 5C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 5C solution.

17) Shake well.

18) This is a 6C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000).

19) Take ½ teaspoon of the 6C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 6C solution.

20) Shake well.

21) This is a 7C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000).

22) Take ½ teaspoon of the 7C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 7C solution.

23) Shake well.

24) This is an 8C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000).

25) Take ½ teaspoon of the 8C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 8C solution.

26) Shake well.

27) This is a 9C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000000000).

28) Take ½ teaspoon of the 9C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 9C solution.

29) Shake well.

30) This is a 10C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000000000).

31) Take ½ teaspoon of the 10C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 10C solution.

32) Shake well.

33) This is a 11C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000000000).

34) Take ½ teaspoon of the 11C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 11C solution.

35) Shake well.

36) This is a 12C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000000000000000).

37) Take ½ teaspoon of the 12C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 12C solution.

38) Shake well.

39) This is a 13C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000000000000000).

40) Take ½ teaspoon of the 13C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 13C solution.

41) Shake well.

42) This is a 14C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000000000000000).

43) Take ½ teaspoon of the 14C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 14C solution.

44) Shake well.

45) This is a 15C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000000000000000000000).

46) Take ½ teaspoon of the 15C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 15C solution.

47) Shake well.

48) This is a 16C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000000000000000000000).

49) Take ½ teaspoon of the 16C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 16C solution.

50) Shake well.

51) This is a 17C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000).

52) Take ½ teaspoon of the 17C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 17C solution.

53) Shake well.

54) This is an 18C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000).

55) Take ½ teaspoon of the 18C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 18C solution.

56) Shake well.

57) This is a 19C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000).

58) Take ½ teaspoon of the 19C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 19C solution.

59) Shake well.

60) This is a 20C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

61) Take ½ teaspoon of the 20C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 20C solution.

62) Shake well.

63) This is a 21C solution (ratio 1 in 10^42 or 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

64) Take ½ teaspoon of the 21C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 21C solution.

65) Shake well.

66) This is a 22C solution (ratio 1 in 10^44 or 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

67) Take ½ teaspoon of the 22C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 22C solution.

68) Shake well.

69) This is a 23C solution (ratio 1 in 10^46 or 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

70) Take ½ teaspoon of the 23C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 23C solution.

71) Shake well.

72) This is a 24C solution (ratio 1 in 10^48 or 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

73) Take ½ teaspoon of the 24C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 24C solution.

74) Shake well.

75) This is a 25C solution (ratio 1 in 10^50 or 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

76) Take ½ teaspoon of the 25C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 25C solution.

77) Shake well.

78) This is a 26C solution (ratio 1 in 10^52 or 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

79) Take ½ teaspoon of the 26C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 26C solution.

80) Shake well.

81) This is a 27C solution (ratio 1 in 10^54 or 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).
(the zeros are running off of the page!)

82) Take ½ teaspoon of the 27C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 27C solution.

83) Shake well.

84) This is a 28C solution (ratio 1 in 10^56 or 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

85) Take ½ teaspoon of the 28C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 28C solution.

86) Shake well.

87) This is a 29C solution (ratio 1 in 10^58 or 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

88) Take ½ teaspoon of the 29C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 29C solution.

89) Shake well.

90) This is a 30C solution (ratio 1 in 10^60 or 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

And then you are done! To make the pills, go to baking center of your grocery store and get some plain cake decorating sprinkles. You can try dropping some of the solution on the sprinkles, or just set the bottle next to the solution for it to absorb the energy (which is the typical method used for over the counter homeopathic remedies).

dean (#13) writes,

Given your history of comments it’s no surprise that you don’t understand it.

MJD says,

It is written, "Homeopathy is based on the idea that "like cures like." That is, if a substance causes a symptom in a healthy person, giving the person a very small amount of the same substance may cure the illness. In theory, a homeopathic dose enhances the body's normal healing and self-regulatory processes.

http://www.webmd.com/balance/tc/homeopathy-topic-overview

Q. Doesn't allergy shot immunotherapy, which is science-based, falls within the parameters of homeotherapy.

Example, low dose of a natural allergen with repeated exposure to decrease sensitivity to that allergen.

https://www.aaaai.org/conditions-and-treatments/treatments/allergy-shots-(immunotherapy)

In this instance, conventional medicine and integrative medicine overlap.

I don't know how much experience anyone here has with college/university development offices, but those folks are usually glad-handing snakes. Their job is to get as much money from donors first, and then see that the fewest strings are attached to it so the school administrators can use it any damn way they please. In this, they are expert are snowing both the faculty and the donors. They have lots of tricks for this – making it look to the donor like the money will go to one thing when it actually goes to something else, and then forcing the faculty into continuing the ruse through the years...

Which is not to say that $200 million doesn't buy a lot of influence. Just that how much influence and where it lands is a complex negotiation, and PR releases can't be trusted to give a proper indication of how it all will play out. My guess would be that most of the The Susan and Henry Samueli College of Health Sciences will be giving only lip service to IM, and continuing the re-branding of useful stuff they were already doing as "integrative". That is, very little of the $200 million will be going to 'quackery'. But, on the other hand, the old Susan Samueli Center for Integrative Medicine is being upgraded and more firmly anchored institutionally within UCI along with the renaming to the Susan Samueli Integrative Health Institute.

Another way to put it: $200 million buys getting your name on a school, but it's probably not enough to dictate everything that goes on inside, (or even all that much of it...). Academic institutions much smaller than the UCI med school are as easy to turn around as the Titanic, and declarations of 'new cutting edge program!!' are more often than not puffed up with hype while most day-to-day business stays pretty much the same.

That's my experience anyway in my corner of academia, which I admit is far away from health sciences, but it seems pretty common, fwiw. Of course, things could be different at Irvine ("Zot! Zot!"), but of all the news I'll read this week, this is likely to worry me the least.

Spectator @12: Oh, that is brilliant. May I borrow it when the need arises?

#15 Michael J. Dochniak, September 26, 2017

MJD says,
It is written, “Homeopathy is based on the idea that “like cures like.” That is, if a substance causes a symptom in a healthy person, giving the person a very small amount none of the same substance may cure the illness.

FTFY.

Q. Doesn’t allergy shot immunotherapy, which is science-based, falls within the parameters of homeotherapy.
Example, low dose of a natural allergen with repeated exposure to decrease sensitivity to that allergen.

The difference is that the low dose is a low but non-zero dose; where the homœopathetic dose is diluent only, a dose of zero.

The other fallacy of your simile is that the extremely low dose of active ingredient in the anti-allergy treatment is designed to produce a subtle effect, teaching the patient's immune system that the allergen really ain't anything to be askeered of. That's why the dose is small rather than non-zero.

OTOH, the homœopathetic "dose", with no remaining active ingredient, is claimed to produce a profound effect, curing whatever the symptom might be.

The similarity you imagine vanishes upon examination.

What is this zot thing everyone keeps going on about?

PGP, you should look up UC-Irvine's mascot for the answer.

Sadmar: I think you're underestimating the influence donors can have on a school.

Why go to the Susan and Henry Samueli College of Health Sciences when you can be taken for a more enjoyable ride at nearby Disneyland?

Despite the classic Hahnman infinite dilutions theme, historical connection or popular association with herbal, natural or nutritional treatments exists with (some?) homeopathic doctors.

So I'm unclear what percentage of lay persons saying that they want homeopathic treatment are really buying into the infinitely dilute treatments superstition.

Go Eaters! Zot!

Quackademic medicine now reigns supreme at UC-Irvine

oracknows — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 04:55:38 +0000

Quackademic medicine now reigns supreme at UC-Irvine

It's not infrequently that, whenever I complain about the increasing infiltration of quackery and pseudoscience into medicine, I sometimes lament that skeptics and supporters of science-based medicine are massively outgunned, because we are. Thus, we have the continued growth of what I like to refer to as "quackademic medicine," the infiltration of pseudoscience into medical academia in the form of whole divisions, departments, and institutes dedicated to studying fairy dust like acupuncture, naturopathy, and other "unconventional" treatments that are then "integrated" into medicine. It's not for nothing that I refer to "integrative medicine" as integrating quackery with medicine.

Unfortunately, I was reminded yesterday of what an uphill battle it is to counter the increasing pseudoscience in medicine when I learned that wealthy donors Susan and Henry Samueli just donated a whole bunch of money to the University of California, Irvine (UCI) to establish an institute dedicated to pseudoscience:

The University of California, Irvine today announced the largest gift in its history: $200 million from Susan and Henry Samueli, longtime campus supporters, to name a first-of-its-kind College of Health Sciences focused on interdisciplinary integrative health. The far-reaching donation – the seventh-largest to a single public university – positions UCI as a bold, new leader in population health, patient care, education and research. “This gift catalyzes UCI’s belief that human health and well-being requires a science-based approach that engages all disciplines in caring for the whole person and total community,” said Chancellor Howard Gillman. “Susan and Henry Samueli’s dedication, their vision for what is possible and their deep generosity will help UCI set a standard that, over time, other medical centers in the U.S. can follow.”

Thanks to the Samuelis, unfortunately UCI has long been a prominent force in the brave new world of integrative medicine. Now, it appears to be taking this "integration" a step further, by "integrating" the pseudoscience across not just the new institute. Behold:

The Susan and Henry Samueli College of Health Sciences will be the first university-based health sciences enterprise to incorporate integrative health research, teaching and patient care across its schools and programs. Integrative health redefines the relationship between the practitioner and patient by focusing on the whole person and the whole community. It is informed by scientific evidence and makes use of all appropriate preventatives, therapeutic and lifestyle approaches, and healthcare professionals and disciplines to promote optimal health and wellness. The existing Susan Samueli Center for Integrative Medicine will become the Susan Samueli Integrative Health Institute and will focus on improving medical care by supporting multidisciplinary research, education, clinical service and community programs. Faculty and students in computer science, engineering, social sciences, business and other areas will collaborate within the institute to study the future of human health.

Of course, the whole paragraph about integrative health "redefining" the relationship between the practitioner and patient by focusing on the "whole person" is the usual blather that quacks everywhere. As I've said so many times before, it is not necessary to "integrate" pseudoscience into medicine in order to take care of the "whole patient." A good science-based primary care doctor takes care of the "whole patient," with no need to resort to appealing to magic like acupuncture, reiki, reflexology, homeopathy, and the like. And if you don't think this is about all of the forms of quackery I just mentioned, take a look at how the Samuelis became interested in "integrative" medicine:

Susan Samueli caught a cold while visiting France more than three decades ago. Instead of the usual medicines, a friend suggested aconite, a homeopathic remedy derived from a plant in the buttercup family. She was cured — and became a lifelong advocate of homeopathy and other alternative healing methods to complement conventional medicine. Her husband, Henry — the billionaire co-founder of Broadcom, the Irvine semiconductor maker — says he was initially skeptical but found the integrative health approach helped him easily shake off colds and flus and kept their children healthy without antibiotics. Now the couple’s passion for integrative health has led to the largest donation ever made to UC Irvine.

As an origin myth, This is just downright silly. Colds are self-limited, and the homeopathic remedy Mrs. Samueli took almost certainly had no effect on the course of her cold. She just got better, as the vast majority of otherwise healthy adults with colds do. As for Mr. Samueli's apparent belief that homeopathy and other "integrative" approaches helped him shake off colds and flus, the same thing is going on. Colds are self-limited. So is the flu for most people, although what most people call the "flu" isn't really the flu but much milder "flu-like illnesses" caused by other viruses. (The real flu can easily knock you on your posterior for a week or even more.)

Basically, this story is a load of confirmation bias and good old-fashioned regression to the mean being confused with therapeutic effect. Yet, that's all it takes for otherwise intelligent people to become believers. Humans are pattern-forming animals. If we take something and then get better we'll say that what we took caused us to get better, whether it really did or not.

Of course, supporters of "integrative medicine" will no doubt become indignant at my description of their favored new medical specialty. They will point to how diet and exercise are an important part of integrative medicine, how integrative practitioners emphasize prevention and healthy lifestyle. The problem, of course, is that diet, exercise, healthy lifestyles, and prevention are all part of conventional medicine. There is no need for a separate specialty for them, any more than there is a need for a separate specialty in order to take care of the "whole patient."

The reason "integrative medicine" exists is not to promote science-based prevention, lifestyle, and exercise interventions, but rather to provide a vessel into which quackery can be poured and mixed with the science-based care until it becomes difficult to tell which is which. That's the idea, whether physicians who have become integrative medicine practitioners will admit it to themselves (or others) or not. So here's how this next stage of "integration" will go.

The Susan and Henry Samueli College of Health Science will eventually include the existing Samueli Center plus the following schools at UCI:

School of Medicine
Sue & Bill Gross School of Nursing
School of Pharmacy (currently the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences)
School of Population Health (currently the Program in Public Health)

And here's where the money will go:

The Samuelis’ gift will provide $50 million toward construction of a facility to house the college and $5 million for state-of-the-art technology and labs – forming the foundation of a national showcase for integrative health. It also earmarks $145 million to create an endowment for:

Up to 15 faculty chairs across the medicine, nursing, pharmacy and population health disciplines for senior, midcareer and junior faculty with expertise in integrative health

Integrative health training and mentoring for interested medical school students

Scholarships and fellowships for undergraduate and graduate students planning careers in related fields

Innovative curricular development and campuswide interdisciplinary research projects

Ongoing clinical services, research and education in the Susan Samueli Integrative Health Institute, including investigations of nonconventional interventions as part of medical treatment and educating medical and lay communities about benefits and risks associated with new healthcare approaches

That last bullet point is critical. The whole point of "integrative medicine" is to integrate "nonconventional interventions as part of medical treatment." That means quackery. There is no other reason for integrative medicine. Just think about the evolution of the naming of integrative medicine. First, it was known as alternative medicine. But "alternative" implied that the "nonconventional interventions" weren't medicine (or weren't good medicine, which they weren't).

So the name evolved to "complementary and alternative medicine," or CAM. However, that wasn't good enough either, because the name mean that the quackery was "complementary" to real medicine. It wasn't real medicine itself (or at least it wasn't as effective or important as real medicine). It was just "icing on the cake." So a new name was coined, "integrative medicine," in which all the quackery was (and still is) portrayed as co-equal with conventional medicine and "integrative medicine" as "the best of both worlds." And here we are. A wealthy couple has donated $200 million to a public university to promote their vision of pseudoscience, and the university has eagerly accepted, even though it will utterly reshape its medical school and all its biomedical sciences for decades to come.

I find it helpful to look at what UCI's Samueli Center already offers. I first took note of the school just shy of 10 years ago, when I added the Susan Samueli Center for Integrative Medicine as part of an early version of my Academic Woo Aggregator.Really long time readers of this blog know that for a time I maintained a list of medical schools that had embraced quackademic medicine. I only maintained the list for a relatively brief period of time, not because I didn't think it was a worthwhile endeavor, but rather because there were just too many schools for me to keep track of alone.

Quackademic medicine has become the norm, not an outlier. It's schools like mine, where I'm faculty, that have little or no quackademic medicine that are the outliers. So what does Samueli Center offer? It's basically the same slate of "integrative medicine" that most quackademic "integrative medicine" centers offer:

Acupuncture & traditional Chinese medicine
Ayurvedic therapies
Functional medicine
Massage therapy
Meditation
Mindfulness
Nutritional counseling
Physical medicine & rehabilitation
Preventive cardiology
Sports medicine & osteopathic manipulation
Tai chi
Vitamin infusion therapy
Women's health
Yoga

Of course, traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurvedic medicine are prescientific systems of medicine based on mysticism and vitalism. Functional medicine is a bit of "make it up as you go along" quackery that combines the worst of conventional medicine on steroids (e.g., massive overtesting) with quackery. Vitamin infusion therapy, of course, is also not scientifically supported. As for the rest, Tai Chi and yoga are nothing more than exercise. Massage therapy makes people feel better, but specific therapeutic claims are to be treated with skepticism.

If you want to get an idea of the level of pseudoscience going on here, it's useful to look at what UCI says about various modalities. For instance, "functional medicine" turns out to be all about naturopathy as well:

Functional medicine, which is based on naturopathic principles, takes a more comprehensive approach. At the Susan Samueli Center for Integrative Medicine, our highly trained naturopaths:

Identify and treat the root causes of illness

Harness the healing power of nature

Treat the whole person

Emphasize disease prevention

Encourage self-responsibility for health

Explore alternatives to drugs and surgery

And, based on functional medicine, UCI might offer:

Based on your individual needs, we develop a treatment plan which may include:

Detoxification

Dietary and lifestyle changes

Exercise therapy

Herbs and dietary supplements

Homeopathy

Manipulative therapies

Psychotherapy and counseling

Stress reduction

There you go. "Detoxification" is virtually always the purest of quackery. Then, of course, there's homeopathy, or, as I like to call it, The One Quackery To Rule Them All. If you don't know why that's the case, I refer you to any of a number of my previous posts, like this one. Of course, one aspect of "integrative medicine" is bias. Basically, its adherents don't ask whether it will help patients and result in better outcomes. Rather, they confidently predict that they will be vindicated in their beliefs:

“As a preventive cardiologist and researcher, I cannot stress enough the critical need for society to adopt a truly integrative approach to health, whether we are talking about community health, nutrition, prevention or appropriate medications. It must start with those who provide care and guidance,” said Dr. Shaista Malik, director of the Susan Samueli Center for Integrative Medicine and the endowed chair of integrative medicine. “Through this exciting new college, we will demonstrate to everyone involved in the health system – from patients to providers to policymakers – the value of an integrative approach.”

And:

Fundamental change in thinking about healthcare and how it’s delivered will take time, a steady stream of new evidence and strong academic leadership. The Samuelis’ transformational gift is the first step toward creating an expanded health sciences campus, integrating the affiliated schools and programs of the college as well as new teaching, research and clinical spaces. “Susan and I have supported healthcare research for nearly 20 years, and over that time, we have seen a significant expansion of the scientific evidence demonstrating the value and efficacy of integrative health. This evidence base is critical as UCI – a young, innovative institution – takes this big and influential step,” said Henry Samueli, Ph.D., an engineer and co-founder of Broadcom Corporation. “We are very excited for the UCI College of Health Sciences to become a national model for integrative health. We believe this model will eventually become the standard approach for promoting health and well-being in our society.”

That's right. Adherents of "integrative" medicine "believe" that it will eventually become standard of care. What evidence do they base this belief on? Certainly not on evidence. I do note that advocates of integrative medicine are quite honest about their goals, as you can see from this article in the the LA Times:

The Samuelis said they hope their financial support for research will help build evidence for alternative therapies that would convince insurers to pay for them, thus letting more people benefit. Acupuncture, for instance, has been widely documented to ease migraines, according to Howard Federoff, a specialist in neurodegenerative disorders and UC Irvine’s vice chancellor for health affairs. But not all health plans cover the treatment.

No, acupuncture is nothing more than a theatrical placebo. When I say that skeptics and supporters of science-based medicine are at a profound disadvantage, this development at UCI is exactly what I'm talking about. What we have is a ragtag band of physicians and skeptics alarmed at the infiltration of pseudoscience into medicine versus very wealthy believers like the Samuelis willing to donate far more money than we can imagine.

Sure, we have science on our side, but will it matter? We have to make it matter.

oracknows Tue, 09/19/2017 - 00:55

Categories

Education

"Quackademic Medicine now reigns supreme at UC-Irvine"

But aren't you an "Assistant Professor" in Michigan?

Oh, Travis, you're several years behind the times. I was promoted to full professor last year and had been an associate professor for several years before that. You must be reading J.B. Handley.

I would like to think there are faculty at the UC Irvine School of Medicine who are upset about this--because if there are not then things are much worse than feared. Why do these faculty not speak out against this pseudoscience? Some of them must be tenured, which should grant the ability to speak openly on such nonsense. Then again when I was doing my residency at the University of Arizona, I never saw anyone openly oppose Andre Weil and his nonsense, which has openly infiltrated many of the residency training programs there since I finished my training.

Shruggies. The vast majority of physicians are shruggies. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-shruggie-awakening/

In a Forbes article titled, "The Largest U.S. Charities for 2016" a quick calculation indicates ~ 7 billion dollars donated to medical organizations that are predominantly science-based.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williampbarrett/2016/12/14/the-largest-u-s…

I'm thankful for their generosity...

It has to be said that to some extent, physicians have nurtured this entire movement--not because they don’t care or are ignorant of what constitutes a healthy lifestyle, but because the truth of these thing just isn’t what people want to hear. I am as guilty of this as anyone else. When I ask my doc about some diet-related thing and she gives me a half page blurry handout on her way out the door, I am grossly offended, but because I know that there is no magic, I accept it. Had she been a naturopath, the interaction would have gone very differently and if I weren’t so steeped in skepticism, I would tend to be much happier with the naturopath, even more so if I were not a skeptic.

It is one thing to acknowledge that “there are problems in medicine” but it is time to offer some real solutions to them instead of bemoaning the success of the quacks in addressing people’s need to interact with their health provider on a more personal level. And don’t say there’s no time because I’ve had providers who achieve a level of care that addresses “the whole person” in the same amount of time that most utterly fail. I accept a level of care that falls short of better experiences because I am an informed skeptic, but most people aren’t and that’s why they respond so well to the woo.

We have done well at outlining the problem, but very little to address it on our own side. My favorite example is that my PCP, a lovely woman who has been my doctor for seven years, has not ONCE asked me how I am--something the dietician (my fave provider) always does. If I bring up mental health (just everyday type of mental health, not serious impairment), she stiffens, mumbles about a psychiatrist or a psychologist (ack!) if I “just need to talk”. This is not an isolated example; I have been through a number of providers at this medical center and it’s all pretty much the same. I’m currently seeking a smaller institution, but that is difficult in my state. My friends find various integrative quacks instead. I used to argue, but I’ve become somewhat of a shruggie these days, given my own state of dissatisfaction with the system. Mind you, I’m not seriously ill or anything, but isn’t that the demographic that is so ripe for the picking by the quacks?

Don’t misunderstand my horror at the goings-on at UCI, but we have to do more than bemoan it. If diet and exercise are “part of medicine”, more needs to be done to make regular people aware of that. Saying “30 minutes a day” or “25 grams a day” and a handout with stick people for back pain are not enough, even though that may be the actual truth of things.

I’m sorry if this comment relies too heavily on personal experience, but I use it to amplify interactions that I have on an almost daily basis over many years. Although I am educated, I don’t travel in academic circles anymore, and as you all know, that is no guarantee anyway that one will not encounter woo--hence today’s sad tale of UCI.

Clearly you need a new primary care doctor. No, I'm serious. The one you have clearly isn't meeting your needs. I haven't had that problem with my last two PCPs; so I'll counter your anecdote with mine.

A bit off topic, please.

I noticed that someone (maybe Mike Adams?) has changed the referenced image in comment #70 of Orac's post titled, "Does the Flu Vaccine cause miscarriages?"

Orac and Mike Adams are matter and antimatter, I appreciate both!

Chris@3: Never mind the faculty, what do the accreditation people think of this? From where I sit, it looks as though UCI is in thrall to a couple of big dollar donors who are encouraging the medical faculty to practice a form of medicine that the donors themselves, let alone the faculty, either know or should know does not work.

I can understand the reluctance of soft money faculty to speak up. They may be dependent on the university for things like bridge funding and lab space, and are therefore not as free to speak their minds as faculty should be. But the accreditation board is designed to be independent of a university's donors. They have no excuse for not pushing back at the first opportunity.

I am a PCP, and have been for 25 years (damn, that is hard to type!) What I have found is that in order to counter this movement you need to be familiar enough with the woo to discuss it with some knowledge. If your patent asks your opinion on massage or chiropractic and you roll your eyes and tell them they are idiots, the interaction will not go well. It does require time spent reading sites that reek of stupid so you know of what they speak, but if you can build a relationship, it is possible to counteract a lot of this. The major drawback is that it takes time, both in reading and talking, and most of us are very pressed for time. Nonetheless, I have a fairly huge antivax population and have been successful at getting the majority of them to get at least some shots. Is that a win? I think so. The latest is everyone needs lip and tongue ties lasered. (!) No clue where this came from, but with research I have talked several down from that ledge. It's all about knowing your patient and your stuff.

"$5 million for state-of-the-art technology and labs" State of what art? And of course they need labs to conduct imaginary tests to produce imaginary results that require imaginary interventions to treat imaginary symptoms, no doubt.

Looking into the accreditation process and registering complaints is a good idea. Also, mingling state and federal funds with these donations should be investigated as well. Contacting your California congress member about your taxes going to support this kind of nonsense if you live in California is a good place to start.

The fact that some science based medicine practitioners are not communicative is not the fault of science based medicine, it is the fault of those practitioners, but yes, we do need to be more proactive towards people that pursue peudo-medical solutions. It won't make you any friends, though. A friend of mine has a little local paid ad service and he regularly allows ads from other friends who advertise the whole spectrum of pseudo-medicine, but he won't allow me to run ads that debunk pseudo-medicine, citing the controversy that would result for him. I think it is mainly because, he too, is a believer. He suggested a juice fasting book to me and said I just didn't want to face the unpleasantness of fasting when I told him it was bull$hit. He's right to an extent, I really don't want to face the unpleasantness of starving myself by consuming just vegetable juice for one or two weeks, especially since it has no positive effects on one's body other than dramatic although temporary weight loss.

@ Eric #9: good point. I have wondered this as well. I suspect the accreditation folk look more at a school meeting the requirements of what they want taught and turn a blind eye to the rest . I don't know if there's a "things you can't teach and get accreditation list" out there, but there ought to be.

What really upsets me is that as the pseudoscience gets embedded over time, the physicians being graduated--unless they have a solid background in science prior to medical school--are going to take all this pseudoscience at the same level of truth as their lectures on anatomy, physiology and pathophysiology. That is not good. Not good at all.

"Is this the shape of medicine to come?"

Can it get much worse than mainstream medical quackery?

Bioinformatics analysis links type 1 diabetes to vaccines contaminated with animal proteins and autoreactive T cells express skin homing receptors consistent with injected vaccines as causal agent
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319592904_Bioinformatics_analy…

Oddly enough, I just saw an ad here at RI for "relaxation, meditation" as tools in " your arsenal" and clicked it in order to see which woo-fraught institution was advertising its wares and lo! and behold! it was
the AIRFORCE. trying to get health care professionals.

Because I live in an area with money ( mostly) I notice how much regular doctors ( MDs. DOs) as well as DCs advertise all the usual woo ( acupuncture etc) as well as newer ( possibly SB) options like
lasers.
Is this just a way to make potential clients feel that their so-called individual needs will be addressed or a way to earn more?

Heh. Vinu cites an article he wrote himself, that contains references to articles he wrote him self, that contains references to articles he wrote himself, that contains references to articles he wrote himself... and there I grew tired of the exercise, but it's Vinu all the way down.

When you cite your own work more than all other people cite your work, I would think professional help may be indicated.

Funny - the only person he ever cites is himself.....

Oh, come on, Johnny. How is Vinu supposed to gain any credibility unless he's referenced in other articles? So by referencing himself in more articles he's written and then repeating it ad nauseum , the impact factor on his articles goes WAY up...or at least rises above zero.

@Vinu: when no reputable person (outside of yourself, for all I know you are reputable in other parts of your life) references your writings, maybe you should take a look at the reason.

MJD: " In a Forbes article titled, “The Largest U.S. Charities for 2016” a quick calculation indicates ~ 7 billion dollars donated to medical organizations that are predominantly science-based."

And? Why do you care about this? You don't even care about science.

the whole person, the whole person, the whole person... magic, wishful thinking, wooly bullshit... the whole person, the whole person.. blah de bah.. behhhe, sheep noise, behhhe.. gobble, gobble.. grovel, grovel.. GI'Z THE BLOODY MONEY!!!

Is this just a way to make potential clients feel that their so-called individual needs will be addressed or a way to earn more?

These options are not mutually exclusive. It's probably both: a floor topping and a dessert wax.

@ #14 Denice Walter.

I suspect it is both revenue enhancement and virtue signalling of some sort. I first encountered the "revenue enhancement" term in connection to use of certain devices and procedures related to some surgeries I was checking on. The links were to sites directed to hospitals and physicians. Sort of chips away at one's faith in the profession.

PGP (#17) writes,

And? Why do you care about this? You don’t even care about science.

MJD says,

I knew you'd be the first minion to initiate a conversation with a personal question. :-)

For the record, I care about science.

For example, I think vinu arumugham (#13) is a creative and well-respected vaccine-safety-advocate who is science-based.

A bit off-topic but of great concern because of the misleading post above about $7 billion going to science-based medical organizations.

Who says they are science-based? You? The 501 (c) 3 structure for charities in the US is highly porous and has almost no meaningful oversight. I suspect there are many, many fake charities and science-y-sounding front groups set up by supplement manufacturers and vitamin/quackery hustlers who have figured out either how to get phony IRS charity status or qualify for it under even more porous state charity laws as a tax dodge for their profits.

The house organ publications and "research" entities I've seen at some of these quackpot web sites strongly suggest they are gaming the system in some very sophisticated ways to evade financial oversight and confuse the gullible about their wonderfully magnanimous efforts to advance public health and conduct legitimate research--all the way to the bank.

"She was cured — and became a lifelong advocate of homeopathy and other alternative healing methods to complement conventional medicine. Her husband, Henry — the billionaire co-founder of Broadcom, the Irvine semiconductor maker — says he was initially skeptical but found the integrative health approach helped him easily shake off colds and flus and kept their children healthy without antibiotics."

As emphasised, Mrs S was not 'cured' of anything by homeopathy - and neither were their children spared 'antibiotics', which of course have no effect on viruses.

Surely it shouldn't be possible for a billionaire to influence the progress of medicine in the US in this way? Surely he would be laughed out of the consulting room? Whatever next? A billionaire with bizarre ideas as President? Surely not.

Lots of acupuncturist were put in jail before Dr Lok Yee Kung in 1973. It was so unfair . It was an unhill battle fought in Nevada. Finally Dr Lok Yee Kung and his supporters won the decisiive battle. Since than Acupunctuirist recognized. Many states soon follow to open up and recognized Acupuncturists as health professionals. Lots of evidence shows Acupuncture works and it is matter. The patients became their own judge.

"Oh, Travis, you’re several years behind the times."

Wrong again, duck.

Then again, it's not really at all surprising.

"Oh, Travis, you’re several years behind the times."

Wrong again, duck.

Then again, it's not really at all surprising...

"Oh, Travis, you’re several years behind the times"

Wrong person yet again, oh duck. It's really not surprising; not in the least bit.

It must so terrible being such a paranoid quack.

Heads up for Orac: Check the spam filter, and tell other ScienceBloggers to do the same. The disappearing post issue is back.

For the record, I care about science.

For example, I think vinu arumugham (#13) is a creative and well-respected vaccine-safety-advocate who is science-based.

MJD,

That would be your own version of science.

This inquiring mind here want to know how your version of science is in accordance with:

1-: Scientists' definition of science?

2-: Philosophers of science definition of science?

Alain

"Interdisciplinary" in this context also really rubs me wrong. Which disciplines are being combined?

And what will happen if the research shows these other methods don't work?

Perhaps MJD has a point, and I may have been a bit harsh in my response to Vinu.

Vinu was complaining about medical quackery, and, unlike many commenters, offered up a prime example of quackery. He pointed us to a quack paper, written by a quack, full of quack ideas.

I appreciate when people provide examples, references, and citations, and wish to encourage such behavior.

I do disagree, however, that Vinu is 'science based', and believe that MJD's endorsement of those ideas proves PGP's point quite nicely.

I like when universities accept money to promote blatant quackery, otherwise people are unable to judge how corrupt they are.

MJD: "For the record, I care about science.
For example, I think vinu arumugham (#13) is a creative and well-respected vaccine-safety-advocate who is science-based."

How can you not see how contradictory those sentences are? As others have pointed out, Vinu's got nothing. His so-called research is pulled, whole cloth, out of his rear end. So are your 'theories.' You wouldn't know science or writing skills if they BIT you.

I, too, laughed out loud when I read MJD's comment.

Thank you for writing on this. Any ideas on getting my university held accountable for such nonsense?
https://ufhealth.org/integrative-medicine/integrative-medicine-consulta…
http://smallanimal.vethospital.ufl.edu/clinical-services/integrative-me…

PGP (#24) says,

Vinu’s got nothing.

MJD says,

Mathematics was stagnant before the initial conceptualization of zero (e.g., nothing) was discovered.

Therefore, nothing can lead into something amazing.

Keep up the outstanding work Vinu (#13).

What a long article to say UCI got a lot of money and I'm jealous. The Samuelis can do whatever they want with their money

Listen and become one of Orac's minions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HqyEHqEYho

The only time mjd seems to care about science is when he needs to look its spelling up in the dictionary. The rest of the time he doesn't think about it.

Mathematics was stagnant before the initial conceptualization of zero (e.g., nothing) was discovered.

Well no, it wasn't. Apparently you are as ignorant of mathematics as you are science. I'd say you should take some of my classes but I wouldn't be able to tolerate your dishonesty.

Obviously, homeopathy is a bunch of bs. However, in the "origin myth" she talks about taking homeopathic aconite for a cold, and mentions that it's related to buttercup. Buttercups are pretty, right? What she took (suggesting there were theoretically any molecules of it in the preparation to begin with) is wolf's bane. It's also known as the queen of poisons. I will never understand how these people can be terrified of vaccine adjudivants, but will willingly take poison.

Mathematics was stagnant before the initial conceptualization of zero (e.g., nothing) was discovered.

Well no, it wasn't. Apparently your denial of science extends to unfamiliarity of mathematics.

MJD,

Zero in math does not equal nothing. Zero is a discreet point on a number line. Because a number line is infinitely long any point maybe considered the zero point.

When we get to real life yes, zero has taken on the meaning of nothing in a material sense.

Not to mention that the ancient Egyptians, who had a concept of zero, would beg to differ. They left us the pyramids as proof.

MJD: Unsurprisingly, you know about as much about math as you do everything else. I hope you didn't pay for that 'education.'

I just want to know what this purported "stagnation" is supposed to comprise. Coordinates are enough of a nuisance as it is.

Therefore, nothing can lead into something amazing.

Um, no.

Add or subtract nothing to something, you don't get anything more or anything less - you aren't lead anywhere.
Start with nothing, multiply or divide it by something, and you lose everything. Despite popular belief, deux fois rien ('twice nothing') is still nothing.
Take something, pull it up to the power of nothing, and you go back to step one.
In the rare case when you start with nothing and put it to the power of nothing, you end up staring at oneself. It's a bit navel-gazing.
Have something, divide it by nothing, and now you are contemplating not infinity, but insanity.
And despite your best wishes, it doesn't get better when nothing is applied to imaginary numbers.

Throughout history the rich have patronized their favorites causes. Sometimes society wins like when Carnegie funded libraries. Unfortunately it can also lead to legitimization of quackery such as this.

Mathematics was stagnant before the initial conceptualization of zero (e.g., nothing) was discovered.

Well no, as others have pointed out, that is not at all true. But I'm not sure whether you mean the concept of zero as (roughly) "no amount" or its use as a place holder for large number. Symbols in cuneiform exist in numerals that play the same role as 0 in our numerals like 640002.

Either way, it's clear you don't have any understanding of the issue, which is consistent with your lack of understanding of science and the related statistical issues. I'd suggest you should study to catch up, but you've shown no interest in learning anything, so that won't work.

And if you subtract something from nothing, you are now either in debt or in the basement.

Perhaps MJD should review Billy Preston's research on the subject.

https://youtu.be/G_DV54ddNHE

I agree more with #6 darwinslapdog. A lot of this reflects MSM failures, often hubristic and massively profitable. Failures to achieve, retain, extend, parse out, or at least accurately explain in many areas, often old. You guys don't even have the vitamin C and D stories remotely correct.

However manifold the faults of various integrative practices, it is the ongoing failures of medicine that largely have brought this about. Perhaps analogous to "those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it".

The cynical parts of me certainly worry about the medical versions of Willie Sutton going where the money is, as well as MSM exploitation of charlatans to establish even more repressive Medical Authority and exploitation of the public, again.

Wow, with PRN here, we've got almost the full cadre of armchair, rear-based scientists. I wonder if NWO or Thingy want to chime in.

oh good lord, that is my alma mater. Some anteaters died at this news. Zot. Sigh. I am appalled. Just appalled.

I have to add that this does not surprise me about Orange Co California. There is are a reason Bob Sears has his practice there and that is pretty much antivax central. A lot of OCers are completely ignorant of science and rational thinking. I grew up there. I moved north for a reason!

Turf wars!!! Science have been killing off people for a few decades now. LMFAO. How do you justify that? Moron!!

I misspoke. Evidently we were missing a Fendlesworth chimp.

Kathy: I thought the creators of BC were hard-core rightwingers and allergic to facts.

Have any academic medical centers cashed in yet on health woo for members of the armed forces? Big bucks await those who can take battlefield acupuncture to the next level.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1433197313382128&set=p.14331973…

dean (#42) writes,

Apparently your denial of science extends to unfamiliarity of mathematics.

MJD says,

Maybe you can add this to your teachings.

https://www.livescience.com/27853-who-invented-zero.html

Provide a brief summary of this article dean and I'll grade it with total objectivity.