Two posts in one day? I must be on crack. Anyway, I came across an article called 'Proof that Homeopathy Skeptics are Still Losing the Debate'. Apparently, 13 reasons why skeptics haven't convinced people homeopathy is bollocks (my words not hers). Lets see what Sandra Courtney has to say for herself.
1) Health care consumers have not been convinced that "real drugs" (versus "sugar pills") are a better option
Maybe you haven't, but the majority of people go to their doctor when they are ill. Surprisng that.
(For the record, I'm quoting select treats from the article. I'd be sorting through slurry until next week otherwise)
2) Perhaps a bit trite, but still significant when one considers sales and market trends, the number of books about the effectiveness and theory of homeopathy for sale on Amazon at the time of this writing is 2,772.
There are over 400,000 results for the term 'medicine'. 2772 is not significant in comparison to this.
3) Every state in the U.S. now recognizes the practice of homeopathy and homeopathic doctors.
7 states make it illegal for atheists to hold office in the US. In 31 states, gay marriage is illegal. Recognition or non-recognition by government does not make something true
4) The number of online and campus setting teaching courses in all the CAM practices, including homeopathy, is steadily growing.
Scientology claims to be growing as well.
5) The number of cancer research and treatment centers in the U.S. that are using integrative medicine, including homeopathy is also expanding
If true, this is a little bit terrifying.
6) If one multiplies $5.35 billion by just 1.25% annually, without adjustment for inflation, one gets a $1.1 trillion dollar global market by 2035.
If Miss Courtney thinks this will actually happen, she's on more drugs than I've had cups of coffee.
7) Homoeopathy is the third most popular method of healing in India, after conventional medicine and Ayurveda
So homeopathy isn't even the most popular type of woo in India. Fantastic outcome there.
8) There are growing numbers of research studies and controlled clinical trials proving the efficacy of homeopathy dating back to January,1988.
Here's the Cochrane Library results for 'homeopathy'. I'm willing to bet most, if not all, are not in homeopathy's favour.
9) The homeopathy skeptics are coming under fire. (It's about time). One of the skeptics' top personalities, Brian Dunning was indicted for fraud.
Dana Ullman was arrested for practicing medicine without a license.
10) Generic argument against Edzard Ernst, who is apparently 'not a credible source on homeopathy'. The only source for why is a dead link. For reference, Edzard Ernst was the first ever professor for complementary medicine in the UK.
11) The quackbusters were soundly, and publicly, beaten in this courtroom.
A court case on America in which someone didn't successfully sue a homeopathic manufacturer for fraud. What strong evidence you have.
12) Your stupidity is boundless and it is no surprise that you believe in magic pills. So what do you ultimately hope to achieve, Sandra? If your objective is to demonstrate the rank idiocy and nastiness of followers of cult of homeopathy, then please carry on because it is behaviour like yours that keeps me going.
This is a comment from Ms Courtney's blog. Not sure I'd have put it in quite these words but it pretty much sums up what I think of her too. The whole rant is spectacular, especially the use of 'excrementum caninum' to treat 'shit-for-brains' syndrome.
13) The medical journalist and author Jerome Burne of the UK had this to say about the "arrogant batty" (Mr. Burne's terminology) skeptics, particularly the Nightingale Collaboration.
One man's opinion about skeptics? Well that definitely proves skeptics are losing the argument. SPeaking of losing arguments, follow me on Twitter and there's a couple of homeopaths who are having a good go at the 'not answer any questions directly game'.
Showing posts with label Cochrane. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cochrane. Show all posts
Sunday, 31 August 2014
A Dangerous Doctor
Frank Lipman MD recently posted this to his Twitter feed.
'100% of statin takers have a serious adverse effect - their body is impaired from producing cholesterol'
This was a retweet from a lady called Zoe Harcombe, who appears to be a 'nutritionist'. To steal a Dara O'Briain line, if a dietician is a dentist, then a nutritionist is a toothologist. Judging the nature of Ms Harcombe's tweets, I'll probably be looking at her in more detail in the future.
Dr Lipman is, of course, wrong. The Cochrane Collaboration found statins 'reduced all cause mortality, major vascular events and revascularisation' with 'no excess of adverse events'. For those interested in the systematic review, here it is in its entirety.
For those who don't want to, I'll talk about the stats on adverse effects in more detail. The trials that were pooled in the systematic review looked at 56, 934 patients, of which 19% had an adverse effect. Now adverse effects are never great, but some such as aching joints, mild fever and occasional headaches are tolerable. Not ideal, but if its a one-off headache for protection against heart attack then its probably worth it. Others, such as cancer and liver failure, are less tolerable.
Specifically mentioned in the Cochrane Review are cancer, rhabdomyolosis, myalgia, type 2 diabetes and haemorrhagic stroke. Here's a breakdown below:
Cancer - Eleven trials looked at this. 5.8% of patients developed cancer. There was no increased risk in those taking statins.
Rhabdomyolosis - Six trials looked at this, with three cases seen in over 19,000 patients. There was no increased risk in those taking statins
Myalgia - Just under 10% of patients developed this in the seven trials that noted it. There was no increased risk in those taking statins
Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) - Only two trials recorded this. 2.4% of those in control groups developed T2DM. 2.8% of those taking statins developed T2DM. This represents a relative risk in those taking statins. However, this risk was only seen in those taking part in the second study, which used higher doses. At lower doses, no increase in risk was seen.
Haemorrhagic stroke - only two trials reported this. 0.2% of those in the studies had this type of stroke. This is higher than expected, but as ischaemic strokes were lowered by the statins, overall stroke numbers were down.
Out of the five specific adverse events the review looked, three showed no increased risk when taking statins. A fourth (haemorrhagic strokes) showed a net benefit when looked at in the context of total strokes. Only T2DM showed an increased and the risk was only seen in those taking a higher dosage of statins.
The review also reports in less detail that there is weak evidence suggesting that statins cause elevated liver enzymes, renal dysfunction and arthritis.I can't say why there is less detail or why the evidence is weak but there we go.
Dr Lipman is conclusively wrong in his tweet. Yes, I know it isn't his tweet originally but he must take the blame for it. He is a doctor. He should know better than to shout nonsense from the rooftops. And sometimes it does. Here's two consecutive tweets he sent out. Try and spot the difference.
'Did you know that the US makes up only 5% of the world's population, yet it consumes over 50% of all the world's pharmaceutical drugs?'
'The cellphone industry doesn't want to admit it, but the science is now clearer: Sustained EMF exposure is dangerous http://ow.ly/AKQ9k'
The first actually talks about a pretty serious problem. Polypharmacy is a huge problem, and especially so in America. I'm not sure I quite buy his figures but the point remains sensible.
The second is essentially something a hobo at a bus stop might say to you.
Dr Lipman, you have a privileged position. You are seen to be an authoritative voice. You should hold yourself to higher standards than this. When doctors say silly things, people can die in droves. Andrew Wakefield sparked the anti-vaccine movement we see today, which has resulted in over 6000 vaccine preventable deaths since 2007 in the US only. You should know better.
'100% of statin takers have a serious adverse effect - their body is impaired from producing cholesterol'
This was a retweet from a lady called Zoe Harcombe, who appears to be a 'nutritionist'. To steal a Dara O'Briain line, if a dietician is a dentist, then a nutritionist is a toothologist. Judging the nature of Ms Harcombe's tweets, I'll probably be looking at her in more detail in the future.
Dr Lipman is, of course, wrong. The Cochrane Collaboration found statins 'reduced all cause mortality, major vascular events and revascularisation' with 'no excess of adverse events'. For those interested in the systematic review, here it is in its entirety.
For those who don't want to, I'll talk about the stats on adverse effects in more detail. The trials that were pooled in the systematic review looked at 56, 934 patients, of which 19% had an adverse effect. Now adverse effects are never great, but some such as aching joints, mild fever and occasional headaches are tolerable. Not ideal, but if its a one-off headache for protection against heart attack then its probably worth it. Others, such as cancer and liver failure, are less tolerable.
Specifically mentioned in the Cochrane Review are cancer, rhabdomyolosis, myalgia, type 2 diabetes and haemorrhagic stroke. Here's a breakdown below:
Cancer - Eleven trials looked at this. 5.8% of patients developed cancer. There was no increased risk in those taking statins.
Rhabdomyolosis - Six trials looked at this, with three cases seen in over 19,000 patients. There was no increased risk in those taking statins
Myalgia - Just under 10% of patients developed this in the seven trials that noted it. There was no increased risk in those taking statins
Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) - Only two trials recorded this. 2.4% of those in control groups developed T2DM. 2.8% of those taking statins developed T2DM. This represents a relative risk in those taking statins. However, this risk was only seen in those taking part in the second study, which used higher doses. At lower doses, no increase in risk was seen.
Haemorrhagic stroke - only two trials reported this. 0.2% of those in the studies had this type of stroke. This is higher than expected, but as ischaemic strokes were lowered by the statins, overall stroke numbers were down.
Out of the five specific adverse events the review looked, three showed no increased risk when taking statins. A fourth (haemorrhagic strokes) showed a net benefit when looked at in the context of total strokes. Only T2DM showed an increased and the risk was only seen in those taking a higher dosage of statins.
The review also reports in less detail that there is weak evidence suggesting that statins cause elevated liver enzymes, renal dysfunction and arthritis.I can't say why there is less detail or why the evidence is weak but there we go.
Dr Lipman is conclusively wrong in his tweet. Yes, I know it isn't his tweet originally but he must take the blame for it. He is a doctor. He should know better than to shout nonsense from the rooftops. And sometimes it does. Here's two consecutive tweets he sent out. Try and spot the difference.
'Did you know that the US makes up only 5% of the world's population, yet it consumes over 50% of all the world's pharmaceutical drugs?'
'The cellphone industry doesn't want to admit it, but the science is now clearer: Sustained EMF exposure is dangerous http://ow.ly/AKQ9k'
The first actually talks about a pretty serious problem. Polypharmacy is a huge problem, and especially so in America. I'm not sure I quite buy his figures but the point remains sensible.
The second is essentially something a hobo at a bus stop might say to you.
Dr Lipman, you have a privileged position. You are seen to be an authoritative voice. You should hold yourself to higher standards than this. When doctors say silly things, people can die in droves. Andrew Wakefield sparked the anti-vaccine movement we see today, which has resulted in over 6000 vaccine preventable deaths since 2007 in the US only. You should know better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)