Science-ish Article brand

Science-ish

Angelina Jolie and the screening behind a life-changing decision

by Julia Belluz on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:37pm - 0 Comments

“I want to encourage every woman, especially if you have a family history of breast and ovarian cancer, to seek out the information and medical experts who can help you through this aspect of your life, and to make your own informed choices.”

—Angelina Jolie, “My Medical Choices,” The New York Times

A beautiful actress with a famously bountiful chest pens an op-ed in the New York Times to explain that she had her breasts removed to stave off cancer. Writing about her double mastectomy, Angelina Jolie cites patient empowerment as the reason women should see their doctors and, perhaps, get gene tested for breast and ovarian cancers.

There’s no debating the importance of taking responsibility for your own health. However, the idea that every woman should follow Jolie’s lead and seek screening is simply science-ish—another case of celebrity-based medicine gone awry.

Sonia Nanda is a genetic counsellor at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto who spent today fielding  emails from worried patients. “People saying, ‘I want the test, where can I get the test, what are the guidelines?’” she explained. Such a spike in public interest would be no different than those recorded after other famous folks endorsed cancer screening. In this case, Nanda asked: “Why would you have this testing if there’s no family history?”

That’s because only a fraction of breast cancers—about five to 10 per cent—are genetic or inherited and screening is indicated for women with a family link. “That’s why everybody doesn’t need to get genetic testing,” Nanda said.

Of the minority of breast cancers caused by a gene defect, BRCA1 (Angelina’s faulty gene) and BRCA2 make up a proportion, so doctors look for these mutations. We all have BRCA genes, which are thought to work as “tumor suppressors” that stop cancerous cells from dividing. But “sometimes people are born with changes or mutations in these genes that can put them at a higher risk of cancer,” Nanda said. “A woman’s risk of developing breast cancer is low in comparison to somebody who has a mutation.”  (Interestingly, BRCA mutations seem to have a higher prevalence among French-Canadian women—like Angelina’s mother—and Ashkenazi Jewish women.)

After testing positive for the mutant gene, Jolie chose to undergo a double mastectomy. It’s not necessarily the option Dr. Steven Narod, Canada Research Chair in breast cancer based in Toronto, would recommend. “It’s a drastic procedure,” he told Science-ish. “But I say the only way I can guarantee (a patient) a future without breast cancer is surgery.”

The latest systematic review on mastectomies and breast cancer prevention suggests this radical procedure can decrease the chance of developing breast cancer in high-risk women like Jolie. Still, the authors warned that even for those who have BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations—the high-risk group—the surgery can end up being unnecessary.

“Women considering (a double mastectomy) should not only understand the risk of breast cancer,” wrote the review authors, “but also understand that many women having (a double mastectomy) would not have died from breast cancer even without having the surgery.”

So the benefits of this drastic operation may not be fully warranted—a message Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer, an expert on risk communication in health, would relay to patients. He cites this retrospective study, still the definitive work on double mastectomies in high-risk women. It looked at 639 patients with a family history of breast cancer. In the women who had the procedure, there was a reduction in the incidence of the condition and death from breast cancer: Out of every 100 women with BRCA1 who opted for the mastectomy, one died from breast cancer within 14 years. Of the 100 who did not get the surgery, five died.

“In other words,” he put it, “the mastectomy saved the lives of 4 per cent, but some 95 per cent lost their breasts without documented benefit.”

Science cannot yet predict which women will get cancer. After Jolie learned she had an 87 per cent risk of developing breast cancer—higher than the some 60 per cent average for women with her genetic defect—she made a choice.

Nanda said women like Jolie with cancer in their families should seek medical advice in order to understand their own risk, not just that of a particular celebrity.

Science-ish is a joint project of Maclean’s, the Medical Post and the McMaster Health Forum. Julia Belluz is the associate editor at the Medical Post. Got a tip? Seen something that’s Science-ish? Message her at julia.belluz@medicalpost.rogers.com or on Twitter @juliaoftoronto

 

Bookmark and Share

Canada’s soon-to-launch clinical trials database: how does it measure up?

by Julia Belluz on Monday, May 13, 2013 5:34pm - 0 Comments

Neeta Lind / Flickr

Any day now, the Canadian government is going to announce a website that federal health minister Leona Aglukkaq is calling a coup for transparency and patient access. The soon-to-be-launched database of clinical trials happening in Canada will go live before the end of May (Health Canada could not confirm the date), which means Canadians will soon have a one-stop shop for information about what pharmaceutical products are being tested on humans in this country.

Before your eyes glaze over at what sounds like a regulatory snooze fest, know that how our government regulates clinical trials impacts anyone who uses or prescribes pharmaceuticals. It also affects all those brave souls who give their bodies over to science in the hope that they’ll not only get help with an ailment, but also contribute to the advancement of knowledge about treatments and human health.

Right now, it’s estimated that about half of all trials run globally never see the light of day. This is because scientists—both independent and those working for the pharmaceutical industry—are more inclined to publish studies about drugs that have positive results, a phenomenon known as publication bias. As Sir Iain Chalmers, a British researcher and one of the founders of the Cochrane Collaboration, asked, “How many (patients) would have agreed to participate (in a trial) if researchers had told them, ‘If the results of this trial don’t serve our academic or commercial interests we won’t make them public?’”

(more…)

Bookmark and Share
recent posts | older posts

Accusations, hallucinations and the science of anesthesiology

by Julia Belluz on Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:56pm - 0 Comments

George Doodnaught is shown in a Toronto police handout photo. (Toronto Police)

The accusations against Dr. George Doodnaught are as disturbing as they are bizarre. The Toronto anesthesiologist has pleaded not guilty to molesting 21 female patients, who range in age from 25 to 75. While the women lay consciously sedated on the operating table, the 64-year-old allegedly kissed them, groped their breasts and even forced them to perform oral sex, all while hidden behind the sterility drape that divides the anesthesia station from the surgery.

Anyone who has spent time in an operating theatre—with nurses, cleaners and doctors buzzing in and out of multiple exits and entrances —would know that orchestrating such acts would take monstrous skill. So far, with few exceptions witnesses who worked with Dr. Doodnaught testified he was a sought-after specialist with a good reputation. The prosecution is charging the hospital was engaged in a coverup.

Even more surreal than the allegations is Dr. Doodnaught’s defence: that the medications used to anesthetize his patients caused “sexual fantasies.” The drugs—including midazolam, ketamine, propofol and sufentanil—were given to patients in different doses to allay their anxiety and produce amnesia. The side-effects: the erotic and violent hallucinations these patients are confusing with reality. It sounded absurd, like something out of a Seinfeld episode, so Science-ish waded in. (more…)

Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

Second opinion: Talking detox with Gwyneth Paltrow’s doctor

by Julia Belluz on Monday, April 22, 2013 11:18am - 0 Comments

 

Alejandro Junger is a “cleanse specialist,” a detox evangelist and a celebrity healer. These days he’s best known as Gwyneth Paltrow’s doctor, the medical expert behind her new diet and cookbook.

When Science-ish received an invitation to speak with Dr. Junger, we accepted. It seemed as good a time as any to explore the complexities of evidence in the context of alternative medicine.

Paltrow’s new cookbook It’s All Good is based on Dr. Junger’s “elimination diet,” which involved abstaining from many foods—wheat, meat, potatoes, sugar, dairy, eggs, even some vegetables—to restore her health after a year of stress and french fries.

Dr. Junger has advised Paltrow and other celebrities on alternative therapies. Now, he offers a range of cleanses on his website, treatments many “mainstream doctors”—if you call them that—would say are woo-based at best and malpractice at worst.

In the spirit of scientific inquiry, Science-ish called Dr. Junger.

The doctor was fresh off an appearance on the Dr. Oz Show, which for skeptical readers might sound alarm bells. We talked about the science that underpins his work. “The best evidence is the results that I see with patients,” said the U.S. board-certified physician in internal medicine and cardiology.

He talked of turning around the lives of frayed and frail patients. In scientific language he described tests that identify “toxic triggers,” the things that might “damage” someone’s guts.

He offered a moving anecdote about a childhood friend from Uruguay, where he grew up. The friend’s wife was diagnosed with Behçet’s syndrome, an inflammation of blood vessels that can lead to chronic pain, blindness and sores in the mucosa-lining of the mouth and sex organs. Doctors put her on chemotherapy and the steroid prednisone, but she couldn’t get better.

Then she met Dr. Junger.

Without running a test he knew she had a “leaky gut.” He said he prescribed medications to get rid of her yeast overgrowth and parasites, plus probiotics and a “gut-program diet.” In two weeks, 95 per cent of her symptoms vanished. “She felt better than she had ever felt!” said Dr. Junger. “No chemotherapy. No prednisone. Not even an aspirin.”

(The new science of the gut is very promising, but it’s early days. As well, there’s no good science behind a recreational “detox” unless it’s in the context of an overdose or occupational hazard.)

Dr. Junger says he wishes more doctors would explore “open-minded medicine,” including alternative treatments and lifestyle approaches. “I want people to learn not to take the prescription pad out and write one for prednisone and chemotherapy that fast.”

Who hasn’t been defeated by the limits of medicine or a doctor’s eagerness to prescribe pills? Who doesn’t want to transform their life and feel their absolute best? Who would say no to a quick fix — especially one you can buy online for $425?

Near the end of our call, Dr. Junger extended an invite to L.A.  “Spend a few days,” he said. “I’ll get you cured of the evidence-based medicine disease.”

Before hopping a plane, Science-ish wanted to explore some of Dr. Junger’s claims.

The doctor points to success stories to defend his practice. When asked if he systematically studies patients and compares them to a control group, to explore if results are real and long-term, one of Dr. Junger’s colleagues explained that such an approach would take years. “We are not a hospital or research institute or funded by the NIH (National Institutes of Health),” the colleague added in a later email. “We don’t have the resources, nor is it our focus.”*

But evidence-based medicine doesn’t work that way. Decisions are drawn from science and rooted in the best-available research. When therapies are new, practitioners proceed with caution. Even when the placebo effect might offer relief to a desperate patient, an evidence-based doctor considers potential harms and falls back on the science.

Or he undertakes careful study to get better research. Take Dr. Stephen Sagar, a McMaster University oncologist who started to explore alternative medicine in the mid-1990s. Patients were arriving in his clinic on myriad therapies to “cure cancer,” from unregulated drugs, to herbs, supplements and special diets. At the time, there was little research on how such treatments affected cancer patients. Dr. Sagar’s research in Hamilton and with teams of U.S. academics was not promising. “We found many of these interventions have been shown to have no benefit.” (Dr. Sagar contacted Science-ish after this piece was published to note that some randomized trials have found that a small number of alternative treatments alleviate symptoms related to cancer, such as acupuncture for pain.)

Even still, he meets patients experimenting with various forms of alternative medicine—treatments suggested by “grandmothers, hairdressers, some kind of urban myth or one person they know who got cured.”

When evidence is emerging or unclear,  Dr. Victor Montori starts with the first principle of the Hippocratic Oath: do no harm. “There’s a risk-benefit balance, and in the absence of knowledge,” says the professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, “I take a conservative attitude, stay away from the stuff that’s new, that’s untested.”

In his decades on the job, he has watched the evolution of science expose the dangers of touted treatments from diabetes drugs to supplements.  “Advocacy shouldn’t be for the widespread adoption of natural or alternative medicine products,” he said, “but for testing.”

Amazing cures and dramatic treatment effects don’t come around too often. (See Chapter 5 of Testing Treatments.) Knowledge builds slowly, incrementally, and then medical practice adjusts. That’s why Dr. Donald Hensrud, preventive medicine specialist at the Mayo Clinic, says it makes no sense to turn around what we know about what makes us healthy every few years. Reflecting on the diet fads of the last decades, from high-protein, to low-fat, and locavore, he added: “Diet should be evolutionary, not revolutionary.”

Indeed, Dr. Junger wouldn’t be the first to build a health brand based on weak science or worse. One of his key competitors in the gluten-free camp is Wheat Belly mastermind Dr. William Davis, who has fingered the ancient grain as the source of all dieting evil. Like the many food faddists before him, Dr. Davis holds up his patients’ success stories as evidence his diet works, and says he doesn’t want to wait for the science to catch up. But as this academic analysis points out, while the diet may work in the short term for some, it’s probably because it forces calorie reduction not because of cutting wheat. As well, there’s little chance dieters will be able to stick to the demanding program.

Both Junger and Davis are physicians who would know you shouldn’t rely on anecdotes—no matter how awesome—to form the basis of clinical decisions, which should remind us of something else we do know from science: human beings are irrational, with a real incapacity to see reality when we have conflicts of interest like a health empire at stake.

Tests and time might yet reveal Dr. Junger’s cleansing systems, elimination diets and leaky-gut remedies to be the panaceas he promises. At that point, like any medicine that works, it should be added to the armamentarium. Until then, miracles based on anecdote must be considered science-ish, no matter how scientific they sound.

*Update: Dr. Junger’s CEO reported they are in talks with teaching hospitals to study the Clean program.

Science-ish is a joint project of Maclean’s, the Medical Post and the McMaster Health ForumJulia Belluz is the senior editor at the Medical Post. Got a tip? Message julia.belluz@medicalpost.rogers.com or@juliaoftoronto on Twitter

 

Tags: , ,
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

Fair warning, fear-mongering — and the real risk of STIs

by Julia Belluz on Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:34pm - 0 Comments

(USACE Europe District/Flickr)

WMD-Rs, or “weapons of mass destruction of relationships.” That’s what Dr. Des Spence, a Glasgow-based general practitioner, calls the public-health messages about sexually-transmitted infections. Over the phone from the UK, he told Science-ish that the health community has overblown the risks of contracting STIs, and that he wished they would “start conveying the facts and not fear.”

Dr. Spence would know something about the facts. In a column he wrote for British Medical Journal this year, he described the evidence behind the “tyranny of terror messages” regarding diseases such as HIV, herpes, and Chlamydia. The chance of contracting HIV from unprotected sex between low-risk people is more than a million to one, and if the virus is contracted, it’s now treatable. So, too, with herpes (“an inconvenience but no life sentence”) and Chlamydia (which does not necessarily cause infertility). “It’s up to public health to provide the facts, not to engender fear and anxiety.”

Many health-care observers would agree with the Glaswegian GP: perhaps because of a hangover from then-untreatable HIV in the 1980s, perhaps in reaction to the pseudoscience-based fears that fuel the anti-vaccination and anti-wifi movements, or perhaps because of a gap between the worlds of health research and journalism, there remains a tendency by public health toward paternalistic, fear-mongering communications of health risks about everything from STIs to pandemic threats. No doubt, these guardians of well-being at the population level, from regional to international, have a difficult task: to strike a balance between over-hyping and underselling, over-reacting and doing too little. But with the recent passage of the 10-year anniversary of SARS, and new pandemic possibilities such as H7N9 and the Coronavirus, it seems like the right time to ask: could they be doing a better job at communicating?

Dr. Rebecca Haines-Saah, a research associate at the University of British Columbia (who also happens to be a star from Degrassi High) thinks so. “We [in public health] tend to appeal to moral and ethical duties and obligations to change but that doesn’t resonate with folks,” she told Science-ish. Like Dr. Spence, she noted that a lot of public-health communications are too stigmatizing—HIV/AIDS messaging, the recent Ontario anti-smoking campaign that compares social smoking to social farting—and urged her peers to reflect on the unnecessary distress they can wreak. “We go over the top, oversell the risks, market the goriest, scariest message to be effective—but is that even ethical?”

And is it actually effective? Dr. Bruce Baskerville, a senior scientist at the University of Waterloo who studies tobacco control, pointed out there are public-health maneuvers that work without the guilt and stigma. On the anti-smoking front, one area in which evidence from around the world is unequivocal relates to the effectiveness of tobacco taxation and pricing. “If you raise the price, there’s less uptake, and more inclination for people to quit smoking.” It’s a systemic change with little overt judgement. Rethinking cigarette packaging and opening quit lines for smokers helped, too. But, he said, “The best thing is giving the public valid information, to help people make decisions.”

Part of getting better information out to the people means working more closely with journalists, explained Anne Simard, chief public affairs officer at Public Health Ontario, and having conversations, not monologues. When asked about fear-mongering from public health, she pointed out that advocacy groups—such anti-vaxxers—and the media can also be sources of anxiety, and said her agency is working on beefing up its lines of communications on social media and with journalists. “People don’t tolerate uncertainty,” she said. The key is “being transparent, being clear about what we’re doing to get towards greater certainty, and how we do that in such a way so that people come along with us.”

Indeed, being open and honest, letting the facts speak for themselves, seems to be the way forward amid public-health anxiety, such as during pandemics. There’s literature to suggest when communications lack transparency and veer too far toward advocacy—stirring a hornet’s nest of worry and alarm—they can have the opposite of the desired effect. That’s not to mention the backlash and suspicion that can arise from withholding information, as seen with China’s SARS and H7N9 communications, and Canada’s less-than-stellar record on science transparency and media engagement.

new study in the journal EPJ Data Science looked at swine-flu vaccine messages on Twitter and found that people were more likely to share and retweet negative views. Meanwhile, those who were exposed to many positive messages often later expressed negative opinions. The lead author, Dr. Marcel Salathé of Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics at Penn State University, said this may suggest heavy-handed public-health messaging flops.

As well, he cautioned that while this was just one paper, and his peers need to test and re-test his hypothesis to see if it holds up, “What’s really fascinating about this study is the major point that we can now measure these things on such a huge scale with thousands or millions of people in real time.” Public health should examine how messages move through social networks, and recalibrate campaigns accordingly. “Ten years ago, we talked about Dr. Google and how people get health information from the Internet. Now, we have to talk about Dr. Twitter and Dr. Facebook.”

That’s a lesson for public-health communicators of every kind. In the age of Dr. Twitter, people turn to the Web and their social networks for intelligence about everything from STDs STIs to emerging pandemics. Public health ought to be there, too: this time, presenting true and timely messages, engaging in conversations, and nimbly tracking their impact in real time. No fear, just facts.

Science-ish is a joint project of Maclean’s, the Medical Post and the McMaster Health ForumJulia Belluz is the senior editor at the Medical Post. Got a tip? Message her at julia.belluz@medicalpost.rogers.com or@juliaoftoronto on Twitter.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

Podcast: Is Gwyneth Paltrow’s new cookbook all good?

by Jessica Allen on Wednesday, April 3, 2013 1:10pm - 0 Comments

Julia Belluz wrote about Gwyneth Paltrow’s new cookbook, It’s All Good Here, where she examined the medical risks of elimination diets. Here, Belluz discusses the differences between food allergies and food sensitivities and the science—from brain imaging to psychology—that explains why we buy into celebrity health advice.

Tags: , , , ,
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

‘It’s All Good’? Actually, Gwyneth Paltrow’s new cookbook borders on quack science

by Julia Belluz on Tuesday, April 2, 2013 11:48am - 0 Comments

Today marks the release of Gwyneth Paltrow’s new cookbook, It’s All Good. Already, this latest offering from the Oscar-winner has been lambasted south of the border for its gluten- and sugar-free recipes, which offend foodies, and, as one critic put it, “take laughable Hollywood neuroticism about eating to the next level.”

But foodie-ism and the possibility of encouraging eating-disordered behaviour aside, Science-ish was immediately stung by the panorama of pseudoscience premises on which the cookbook rests.

Paltrow opens by describing how she was literally brought to the brink of death—culminating in no less than a migraine and panic attack—after too many stress- and French fry-filled months.

She undergoes what sounds like every medical test imaginable, and finds she has a thyroid problem, anemia, vitamin D deficiency, a congested liver, hormones that were “off,” and “inflammation” in her system. “Another roster of tests” exposed “high levels of metals and a blood parasite.” Mixing her young children into the madness, she gets them tested for food sensitivities, too, and finds they are all intolerant of gluten, dairy, and chickens’ eggs, among other things.

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

Did reducing hours for residents increase medical errors?

by Julia Belluz on Sunday, March 31, 2013 9:37am - 0 Comments

There was a sigh across the country in 2011 when a Quebec arbitrator ruled that the 24-hour shifts required of medical residents violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why were young doctors working inhumane hours with vulnerable patients at their semi-lucid mercy? Doctors shared stories of car accidents after long shifts and of mistakes made in the daze of exhaustion.

Key thinkers on health care called it a common-sense ruling. A few months later, Quebec capped on-call duty for residents at 16 hours, down from 24. With mounting evidence about the adverse effects of long-call shifts, it seemed like a move the rest of Canada should follow.

Or maybe not, new research suggests.

Two studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association argue that the 16-hour limit might not actually improve the lives of residents or the safety of patients. In fact, it may make matters worse.

A longitudinal cohort study, published in JAMA, used a first-year resident health survey to track the effects of 2011 duty-hour reforms in the U.S. (which, like Quebec, limited call to 16 hours but only for first-year trainees). Dr. Srijan Sen, a psychiatry professor at the University of Michigan who led the study, told Science-ish that his data busts assumptions. Shorter shifts did not lead to more sleep — nor did it improve the well-being of residents. In fact, they made more medical errors. “There are unintended consequences—negative consequences—associated with capping hours,” he said.

For example, most hospital residency programs didn’t have the resources to hire new physicians or physicians’ assistants, so residents were expected to do about the same amount of work in less time. Dr. Sen linked the resulting “work compression” to medical error. “There’s clear evidence that working so long isn’t good for cognitive functioning. But it looks like we’re creating new problems by cutting down those shifts.”

The second JAMA study looked at medical house staff at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, randomly assigning them to a 30-hour cap, or to one of two groups with a 16-hour cap. The investigators used wrist watches that measure movements to find out if the groups working fewer hours managed to catch more sleep. The lead author, Dr. Sanjay Desai of Johns Hopkins, told Science-ish that the interns who worked less slept an average of three hours more around the period during which they took call, but otherwise got no more sleep than the control group.

“Is three hours enough sleep to change levels of fatigue and response times?” he asked. “For us, this introduced potential flaws in the logic that if you cap hours, people will sleep more, and meaningfully more. That doesn’t seem to hold true based on the data we have.”

There were other alarm bells. Dr. Desai says residents who worked night shifts felt their education was compromised, since learning and educational activities generally slow down at night. Hand-offs in the 16-hour groups increased between 130 to 200 per cent compared to the previous 30-hour model. As a result, patients were juggled between more doctors than before. (It’s well known that transitions of care can be akin to a game of broken telephone, a major source of medical error.)

So what now?

Dr. Chris Landrigan, a professor at Harvard Medical School, who did a systematic review on the effects of the 16-hour call, said most literature points to reducing shifts, and notes serious limitations in the designs of the new studies. The first by Dr. Sen relied on self-reporting of medical errors, well-being and sleep patterns. Dr. Desai’s study also made no direct measure of patient safety. Instead, investigators looked at sleep and hand-offs, which weakens the argument that caps lead to more errors.

Still, some of the findings in the JAMA studies have been illustrated by the Quebec experience.

Dr. Charles Dussault is president of the Fédération des médecins résidents du Québec, which represents the province’s medical residents. The FMRQ is trying to find ways to supplement education in the OR after surgical residents complained they weren’t learning enough. ”OR time is precious,” he explained. “Some of the models we proposed limited the number of hours residents can spend in the OR.”

Quebec doctors have also reported concerns about the increase in hand-offs. “People are feeling the fact that there is more patient transfers than there were before could increase the risk of mistakes.” Dr. Dussault said hospitals are looking for ways to improve hand-offs. “We are still in transition,” he added. “People had the same debate when they went from a 72-hour cap to 36, from 36 to 24, and now from 24 to 16.”

And that’s exactly it: shift length is a systems challenge that requires a systems solution. Resident duty hours need to be more humane, but cutting hours without redesigning the hospital infrastructure—standardizing hand-offs, addressing work compression or paying attention to resident education—won’t get doctors very far.

Both Drs. Sen and Desai pointed out that it wasn’t just the shrinking of shifts that may have increased errors; it was the lack of planning and organization around the changes. Importantly, they cautioned against the 16-hour limit, noting it was too prescriptive — that a one-size-fits-approach is not suitable for every hospital.

In Canada there is currently no consensus on the regulation of duty hours. We can do better. Somewhere between the U.S. and Quebec is a model for the way forward. 

Science-ish is a joint project of Maclean’s, the Medical Post and the McMaster Health ForumJulia Belluz is the senior editor at the Medical Post. Got a tip? Message her at julia.belluz@medicalpost.rogers.com or @juliaoftoronto on Twitter.

Tags:
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

Can your smartphone make you sick?

by Julia Belluz on Friday, March 22, 2013 5:05pm - 0 Comments

A dim view of movie texting

Last year, over a midsummer’s supper, Science-ish had a conversation with a prescient friend. As our smartphones buzzed on the table, she expressed a worry that these omnipresent devices were becoming a public health hazard. “People are addicted,” she said, noting they not only disrupt our dinners, but our work, sleep, and sex lives, too. “It’s like the early days of smoking: a total free-for-all.” Known to soapbox about modern problems, she called for an Emily Post 2.0 to step up and establish some social norms. Until then, she vowed to go back to a no-frills mobile phone that could only be used for calling and texting.

Tellingly, a year later, she hasn’t quit her smartphone. But the signs of social and cultural disruption are now as ubiquitous as the devices themselves. You’ve surely seen co-workers so distracted they miss their floor on the elevator, people at bus stops so engrossed they scarcely notice the world passing by, and strangers holding up the line at the grocery store or bumping into each other on the street—all because the lure of the glowing screen outweighs quotidian interactions. Perhaps you are one of these people, and have asked yourself: If there were smartphones in 1989 Berlin, would anyone have noticed the wall coming down (that is, if the event wasn’t broadcast on a mobile device).

As companies—even in Silicon Valley—encourage workers to silence their smartphones, Science-ish wondered what that means for the rest of us and about the science behind these decisions. Are smartphones bad for our health? (more…)

Tags:
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

Why are some hospitals more likely to perform C-sections?

by Julia Belluz on Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:48pm - 0 Comments

 

phalinn / Flickr

You go into Starbucks, and order your preferred brew. What you get is what you expect: a tall, dark roast. The next day, you go into a different Starbucks location and place the same order. Though you gave your usual instructions and the only thing that changed was the address of the coffee shop, you get something wildly different.

Now imagine if, instead of your morning coffee, we were talking about whether you were going to get surgery or not: If where you sought care determined what kind of care you received, such as the difference between having your abdomen cut open for a caesarean-section birth or a less risky (and less costly) vaginal delivery.

“You would think if two women who looked pretty similar walked into two hospitals to deliver,” said Dr. Katy Backes Kozhimannil (PhD), a public health professor at the University of Minnesota, “they would have a similar chance of a cesarean delivery.” But in a new study, Dr. Kozhimannil found quite the opposite. Looking at 800,000 deliveries in 593 U.S. hospitals, she and her co-investigators discovered that seven per cent of mothers got a C-section in some hospitals, while at others, 70 per cent did. (The World Health Organization says 10 to 15 per cent is the appropriate rate of cesarean delivery.)

To make sure the variation wasn’t driven by hospital profile—different patient populations, hospitals that specialize in complex cases versus those that don’t—they also crunched a sub-set of the data: women with low-risk births. To their surprise, here too they found a massive range, from two per cent to 36 per cent of deliveries.

Unwarranted variation

This finding was disturbing, Dr. Kozhimannil said, “because it signals an overuse or underuse of services, both of which have an impact on  health and cost outcomes.” In the context of delivery, she added, the conversation immediately turns to overuse but what’s sometimes forgotten is that there may also be women who needed C-sections and didn’t get them.

In health care, the term “unwarranted variation” describes these differences, when the care patients receive is determined by things like a doctor’s preferences or policies within a local hospital instead of the best-available evidence or patient need. In this case, the researchers thought “vast differences in practice patterns”—not patient characteristics—were driving the fluctuation in C-sections. After all, they found requests by mothers accounted for only a very tiny percentage of cesarean deliveries. (The same is true in Canada.)

The thing that’s science-ish about all of this is that it’s not a new health-care problem. With C-sections, unwarranted variation has been documented for decades at the country level (Finland has a lower rate compared to Australia and the U.S.) and even within provinces and states. It’s also a problem that goes beyond child delivery. In Canada, this medical lottery has been seen in everything from mastectomies and hysterectomies, to knee-replacement and coronary-bypass surgeries.

An intractable problem?

And yet, even though we have reams of data about unwarranted variation, the issue persists, and is the subject of very little public discourse and political attention. For Dr. Kozhimannil, part of the challenge is that addressing variations in health care involves confronting vested interests and the health system status quo. “We’re on a particular path and getting off that path is very difficult,” she said.

Her co-author, UBC’s Dr. Michael Law (PhD), pointed out that the health-care community’s hands-off approach hasn’t helped. “We assume by putting out practice guidelines and publishing on appropriateness, that’s going to promote change,” he said, explaining that changing physicians’ practice patterns requires intensive training and education.

Beyond transforming medical practice, there’s another obstacle: the ‘more is better’ narrative still dominates in medicine, and unwarranted variation upends that. Sometimes more is worse, and just more expensive.

Still, there are solutions. As Drs. Law and Kozhimannil outline in their paper on C-sections, getting policymakers to introduce statewide quality-improvement programs or incentives that promote hospital-level change can help. But first, we need strong voices to raise awareness about unwarranted variation and the political will to address it. We wouldn’t tolerate inconsistency within a coffee chain. Why would we tolerate such variability when it comes to our bodies and our health?

Science-ish is a joint project of Maclean’s, the Medical Post and the McMaster Health ForumJulia Belluz is the senior editor at the Medical Post. Got a tip? Message her at julia.belluz@medicalpost.rogers.com or @juliaoftoronto on Twitter.

Tags: , , ,
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

Great minds think alike when it comes to funding brain research

by Julia Belluz on Friday, March 8, 2013 3:02pm - 0 Comments

Benedict Cambpell/Flickr

This week, the cash-strapped Ontario government announced it would spend $100 million over five years on brain research. With the investment, Canada appeared to be joining other jurisdictions around the world in what seems like a neuroscience arms race. South of the border, the Obama administration pledged $3 billion US on a massive project called the Brain Activity Map for America’s second “decade of the brain.” Meanwhile, Europe injected $1.3 billion US on a computer simulation of our grey matter called the Human Brain Project.

These neuroscience efforts promise to further our understanding of the brain as the Human Genome Project did with genetics—all the more important in knowledge economies that rely on big intellects for progress. As well, now that science has prolonged human life by alleviating chronic diseases like cancer, people need agile minds into their old age. As a government spokesperson in Ontario said, the economic impact of brain diseases and disorders is estimated to be $39 billion annually. This new money should help to address that burden, she said, and make sure Ontario “remains on the cutting edge of research and innovation.”

Science-ish wondered where Canada squared in the big brain push, and whether the announcement about investment into neuroscience is just part of a passing science fad.

Dr. Alain Beaudet, the president of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research—the government’s health research investment agency—told Science-ish,  “We’re punching way above our weight in the brain research area.” And Canadian researchers have for some time, he added. Dr. Wilder Penfield, the late McGill University neurosurgeon and professor, invented the concept of brain research, and Canada is still considered a leader in neuroscience globally. “Canada ranked second in the world in terms of scientific impact in the field general psychology and cognitive science, and we rank fifth in the world in impact on neurology and neurosurgery. In the area of pain research, we rank first in the world.

Interestingly, neuroscience is one of the single biggest recipients of funding at CIHR—and it has been since the agency was founded in 2000.

If you play with this data visualization, you’ll see investments into neuroscience are second only to cancer, and that they have grown over the years. In 2011-2012, CIHR put more than a tenth of its $1 billion budget—or $126 million—into neuroscience. Though the federal funder of health research is one of a number of institutes and provincial funding agencies that invest in science, these data give a sense of shifting research priorities—and neuroscience’s dominance in Canada

Still, some scientists are skeptical, worrying that big brain projects, such as the one in the U.S., are going to over-promise and under-deliver. As Dr. Jim Woodgett, director of research at the world-renowned Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, told Science-ish, “We know so little about the brain and the reason we know so little is not because we aren’t studying it; it’s because it’s very complicated.” He added: “It’s not a question of throwing money at this problem.” He’s not the only one to question some of neuroscience’s great promises.

When asked about why Ontario chose now to invest in brain research, specifically through the Ontario Brain Institute—a provincial neuroscience research hub—a spokesperson emphasized the Institute’s commercial focus on translating findings in the lab “into products in the marketplace and services in Ontario hospitals.”

The leap to clinical applications when there are still so many basic unknowns about the brain is not necessarily a good thing for science. “My worry is that we in the scientific community are becoming all too willing to mortgage the future of balanced science by selling big projects and promises to politicians in the language that they are naturally selected to be drawn to,” Woodgett added. “Brash promises are in. Incremental, considered research is out.”

Dr. Woodgett would prefer policymakers take a longer view of science, and instead of rushing to unlock the brain as we did the (much less complex) human genome, aim for a balanced approach to research and funding. “But,” he added, “the politicians much prefer to get behind a particular effort, to be seen to be doing something about a problem. They just shouldn’t put all the eggs into one or two baskets.” Even if the basket is the brain.

Science-ish is a joint project of Maclean’s, the Medical Post and the McMaster Health ForumJulia Belluz is the senior editor at the Medical Post. Got a tip? Message her at julia.belluz@medicalpost.rogers.com or @juliaoftoronto on Twitter.

Tags: , , , ,
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

Should the state pay for in vitro fertilization?

by Julia Belluz on Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:29pm - 0 Comments

Josemanuelerre / Flickr

If you’ve been watching the health headlines lately, you may have noticed a number of reports calling on provincial governments to fund in vitro fertilization treatments for would-be parents.

This week, a Calgary charity asked the Alberta government to swoop in and cover the cost of IVF since “people in the province are selling their homes, working several jobs and going heavily into debt just to conceive a child.”

Another report this month, by the Infertility Awareness Association of Canada, claimed that the province of British Columbia “could save $78 million healthcare dollars in the first five years alone if it funded single embryo transfer IVF treatments.”

Right now, Quebec is the only province in North America to publicly fund IVF treatments, and these groups suggest others should follow suit in order to save health-care dollars and help would-be parents.

These messages, along with images of cute babies and wrenching stories from expectant moms, have been delivered uncritically by the media. But what about the evidence behind them? Science-ish scratched the surface of these reports and found conflicted interest groups, patchy science, and celebrity advocacy, all peppered by high emotion and moving anecdotes. In other words, a perfect recipe for wild health claims and evidence-free policy.

Let’s start with the conflicts of interest behind the recent headlines. The Calgary outfit calling for IVF coverage in Alberta is called Generations of Hope. The well-meaning charity helps to cover the cost of parents who can’t afford IVF. Among its sponsors are a drug company that makes fertility therapies (EMD Serono Canada) and a fertility website that was created by the drug-maker. Similarly, the group behind the B.C. claim is the Infertility Awareness Association of Canada, which is funded by a range of fertility clinics and pharmaceutical companies.

So the folks who sponsor the groups advocating for state-sponsored IVF are the same ones who would gain financially from such policies. Any realist will not be surprised by this fact. But if these groups are going to push for pan-Canadian policy changes, they’d better have good data to back their arguments—and right now they don’t.

Take the suggestion that other provinces should follow Quebec’s lead in order to save money. This claim is based on the fact that Quebec’s funding is linked to a single embryo transfer policy, which means that when the state pays for an IVF treatment, doctors should only implant a woman with one embryo instead of many. Single embryo transfers reduce the number of multiple births, which are linked to pre-term deliveries, cesarean sections, and higher usage of the neonatal treatments.

The assumption is that when cash-strapped families pay for treatments themselves, they may demand multiple embryos be implanted in fewer cycles to improve their chances of getting pregnant while containing the costs. With government assistance, this pressure would be alleviated—and so would the health-systems costs associated with delivery complications.

Some, like Quebec pediatrician Dr. Annie Janvier, argue that the province’s program reduced the rate of multiple births, and so they extrapolate that that must mean overall savings. In an email, she explained multiple births in Quebec dropped from 30 per cent to five per cent following the IVF coverage. Science-ish traced that figure to unpublished data from a PowerPoint presentation at a fertility conference.

When asked about money part of the equation, she sent back a quick calculation. “About 60 per cent of twins are admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, often for weeks or months. The NICU costs $5,000 per day, and this is without examining the costs to disabled children, or higher maternal costs for twin pregnancies. One IVF cycle costs $5,000 or less in the public system.” All that sounds great, but again, when pressed for citations or formal analyses, Dr. Janvier could not produce them.

That’s because—despite the big claims about cost savings—there is no such study of the net benefits to the system yet, said Dr. Hananel Holzer, Medical Director of the McGill University Reproductive Centre. “The cost effectiveness studies are not done yet,” he told Science-ish. “We are trying to perform some here now.”

There was actually a report in Le Devoir this week that the program is costing more than anyone anticipated based on government data.

Still, Dr. Holzer said, the Quebec program has done one thing well: increased the rate of single embryo transfers, which are the standard of care, according to professional practice guidelines, and better for women’s bodies, baby’s health, and the health system. “(Funding) was a tool to enforce single embryo transfers,” he said. “You could see the reduction within a few months of the program being introduced.”

But not everyone agrees that such a carrot should be used to get doctors to practice the best medicine. Francoise Baylis, a professor and Canada Research Chair in bioethics and philosophy at Dalhousie University, made the point that doctors should only be performing single embryo transfers regardless of funding mechanisms. “No physician under any circumstances should be practicing bad medicine,” she said, adding that this is an issue the profession should address, independent of whether provinces are attaching dollars to the practice.

Meanwhile, there’s another science-ish lesson here: Quebec’s decision to fund IVF was pushed along by celebrity advocacy. Media darling Julie Snyder had trouble conceiving, but IVF ended those struggles, and she has said, “When I got pregnant, I swore to God that I would help other women.” Her help came in the form of vigorous campaigning—involving other celebrities like Celine Dion, and even a documentary on the subject— for the provincial government to pony up and cover couples in need.

Celebrity advocacy in the absence of evidence does not make strong public policy. If provinces decide, on compassionate grounds, to fund IVF, that’s one thing. But interest groups making claims about cost savings that aren’t true is quite another. Quebec is actually the perfect Petri dish in which to examine the impact of state-funded IVF. We just need some independent study and good data to make a case either way.

Science-ish is a joint project of Maclean’s, the Medical Post and the McMaster Health ForumJulia Belluz is the senior editor at the Medical Post. Got a tip? Message her at julia.belluz@medicalpost.rogers.com or @juliaoftoronto on Twitter.

Tags: , ,
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

Big Data: Bad science on steroids?

by Julia Belluz on Friday, February 22, 2013 4:02pm - 0 Comments

Jared Zimmerman / Flickr

In case you didn’t realize, we’re living in the era of big data. From sequencing the molecules of human life to divine our futures, to capturing fodder on Twitter to predict disease outbreaks, big data’s potential is massive. It’s the new black gold, after all, and it can cure cancer, transform business and government, foretell political outcomes, even deliver TV shows we didn’t know we wanted.

Or can it? Despite these big promises, the research community isn’t sold. Some say vast data collections—often user-generated and scraped from social media platforms or administrative databases—are not as prophetic or even accurate as they’ve been made out to be. Some big data practices are downright science-ish. Here’s why:

Low signal-noise ratio

Let’s start with genome sequencing, an example of micro level big data capture. A newly published commentary in the journal Nature argued that, for most common diseases, screening people’s genomes is excessive and ineffective. That’s because, so far, genetic differences have been poor predictors of most diseases in most people. For example, with obesity or type-2 diabetes, many folks who have a genetic variant don’t get the disease or condition, while others do. If we started screening everybody, we’d have too many false positives and negatives to make such an exercise worthwhile.

The commentary’s lead author, Dr. Muin Khoury of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the U.S., told Science-ish that the problem with big data genomics is that it’s hard to tell the signal from the noise. In the past, researchers working with smaller data sets would have a relatively modest number of statistically significant associations that were the result of chance. “In the genome era, when people started looking at millions of variants in a data set, they lowered their signal-noise ratio.” In other words, the bigger the data, the more opportunity to find correlations—that may or may not actually tell us something real.

Nassim Taleb, the author of Antifragile, does a good job here of explaining why bogus statistical relationships may be more common in the big data era, pointing out the parallel challenges with observational studies in health research. “In observational studies, statistical relationships are examined on the researcher’s computer. In double-blind cohort experiments, however, information is extracted in a way that mimics real life. The former produces all manner of results that tend to be spurious more than eight times out of 10.”

Hypothesis-free science-ish

Big data also goes hand-in-hand with “hypothesis-free science,” which some say departs from scientific principles. Instead of starting with a hypothesis and working out which data you would need to test it, researchers cast around for associations in data sets that are already available. Dr. Helen Wallace (PhD), director of the genetic science public interest group GeneWatch, put it this way: “If you don’t have a good scientific hypothesis about what causes a disease, you’ll probably end up measuring the wrong data in the first place.”

Screening the genome of everyone at birth, for example, seeks out the genetic basis for disease but doesn’t account for things like environmental exposures or lifestyle factors, which may actually be important predictors of sickness. She likens this to forecasting the weather by only measuring the temperature with a thermometer. “You would miss out on other key weather predictors, like barometric pressure.”

Big quality?

There are also questions about the integrity of big data. A recent article on Google Flu Trends showed that the online tracker massively overestimated the year’s flu season. For Rumi Chunara, a researcher who works on the big data infectious disease surveillance project HealthMap, it comes down to the quality of the data. “Sometimes you can find relationships, things that come up that could be happenstance, and could be confounded by something you’re not paying attention to,” she said.

The Google Flu Trends misfire may have been caused by this year’s hysteria in the media around influenza. People read the headlines about the deadly flu season and hit the Internet for information. Google Flu Trends calculated those extra searches as reflecting actual flu sufferers, when they were actually a big media feedback loop.

Similarly, HealthMap does not capture every infectious disease around the world—only the ones that are reported in the news media. This limits tracking to events that are picked up by media outlets in the 12 languages HealthMap’s algorithms are designed to detect. So, even though researchers are constantly tweaking their algorithms to limit error, infectious disease trends can be more media construct than reality.

Still, Chunara made a key point: “You have issues with every kind of data set.” That’s certainly true when it comes to official flu-tracking mechanisms. She sees big data as an adjunct to other more traditional approaches, not something that will supplant them. “We’re not going to be able to match some gold standard but we need to think about what aspects these new data sets bring,” she said. “These methods provide information our traditional methods don’t.” And they’ll do it faster.

It’ll take time for the scientific community to recalibrate its methods for the big data era. For now, just be wary of bad science on steroids.

Science-ish is a joint project of Maclean’s, the Medical Post and the McMaster Health ForumJulia Belluz is the senior editor at the Medical Post. Got a tip? Message her at julia.belluz@medicalpost.rogers.com or on Twitter @juliaoftoronto

Tags: ,
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

Tamiflu takedown

by Julia Belluz on Wednesday, February 13, 2013 6:42pm - 0 Comments

kanonn/Flickr

Unpredictable, wily, erratic: If the seasonal flu were a person, he would be Charlie Sheen. In any given year, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates influenza-associated deaths range from a modest 3,000 to the population of a small city, or 48,000. To confront this annual onset, public health agencies ready themselves with preventative measures (flu vaccine) and treatments (such as Tamiflu).

Last month, during peak flu hysteria, the Public Health Agency of Canada made an announcement: that it would release a bunch of the influenza drug Tamiflu from the emergency national stockpile to ensure all Canadians who needed the medication had access. The release was suspect for one key reason: it did not reflect any of the doubts and questions that have been raised by the international research community about Tamiflu, namely, recent high-quality studies that show the medicine may not be as effective as the drug-maker claims.

(more…)

Tags: , , ,
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

Podcast: What’s the evidence behind the anti-fluoridation outrage?

by Julia Belluz on Sunday, February 10, 2013 8:24am - 0 Comments

Juanmonino/Getty

This week, Windsor Ont. became the latest community in Canada to stop adding fluoride to its water supply. This means there are now more than 30 communities across the country that have abolished fluoridation, joining some 200 anti-fluoride municipalities in the US.

Though Windsor has been accused of perpetuating junk science, there are many countries around the world that have never added fluoride to the water supply or have moved away from fluoridation for reasons other than Cold War-era paranoia about mass medication. Science-ish sat down with Macleans.ca assistant editor, Jessica Allen, to talk about the evidence for fluoridation, what’s being lost in the fluoride debates, and what the anti-fluoride movement tells us about popular perceptions of science.

Read the related Maclean’s story here.

Science-ish is a joint project of Maclean’s, the Medical Post and the McMaster Health Forum. Julia Belluz is the senior editor at the Medical Post. Got a tip? Seen something that’s Science-ish? Message her at julia.belluz@medicalpost.rogers.com or on Twitter @juliaoftoronto

Tags: , ,
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

Talking with Ben Goldacre about his new book, ‘Bad Pharma’

by Julia Belluz on Tuesday, February 5, 2013 2:14pm - 0 Comments

Ben Goldacre is the British physician and “nerd cheerleader” who has done important, debunking work about everything from homeopathy to vaccine scares in his book Bad Science and in his Guardian newspaper-column of the same name. Now, Goldacre has turned his gaze to the pharmaceutical industry. With Bad Pharma, his new book, he painstakingly documents how “good science has been perverted on an industrial scale.”

Pharmaceutical companies frequently hide unflattering studies and selectively publish positive ones, which means a lot of science never sees the light of day and the medical community has a skewed view of the evidence base for treatments. As well, trials are sometimes flawed by design and done on unrepresentative patients so that outcomes are more favourable. Drugs are then marketed to doctors in ways that reflect a distorted reality. Meanwhile, regulators are asleep at the switch and the medical establishment is failing to address these well-documented problems. Medicine is, indeed, broken.

While the book is called Bad Pharma, it could have easily been called Bad Doctors, Bad Academics, Bad Health Regulators, or just Bad Medicine. “The book describes a huge interlocking ecosystem of problems that reinforce each other and it’s not just about drug companies being bad,” Goldacre told Science-ish. “It’s also about regulators lacking ambition, doctors being thoughtless and lazy, lots of people being quite reasonably self-interested in systems that have perverse incentives, and patients not getting sufficiently involved in evidence.”

At a time when celebrity doctors peddle junk science, Goldacre talks with Science-ish about why real science matters, the next revolution in medicine, and the paramount importance of fair tests and trials.

Q: You’ve popularized nerdy things like clinical trial design at a time when it’s been more fashionable, among pop-science writers, to cover astronomy or particle physics. Why has study design been such a big focus?

(more…)

Tags: , , ,
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

How did Jenny McCarthy earn a platform at a cancer fundraiser?

by Julia Belluz on Friday, February 1, 2013 9:55am - 0 Comments

Update Feb. 1, 5:15p.m.:

The Ottawa Regional Council Foundation has announced that Jenny McCarthy has been dropped from their fundraiser. 

“To be honest, we didn’t expect this kind of response,” Linda Eagen, president and chief executive of the Ottawa Regional Cancer Foundation told the Ottawa Citizen. “When we started to get that (negative) feedback where people were talking about anything but cancer, we just decided to move away from that.”

McCarthy tweeted the change of plans on her Twitter account: “So so sorry Ottawa! I had to pull out of event because of my new show taping conflict but will be back in a few months to make up for it!”

Science-ish blogger Julia Belluz wrote this column before the decision was announced: 

They say all publicity is good publicity, which can be the only way to explain why anti-vaccine campaigner Jenny McCarthy has been invited to appear at an Ottawa breast-cancer fundraiser next month.

McCarthy will be a guest fitness instructor at the Ottawa Regional Cancer Foundation’s March 2 “Bust A Move” event, which boasts Laureen Harper and an oncologist on its leadership committee. Inviting an anti-vaxxer to a health fundraiser is like getting Lance Armstrong to keynote a conference on honest sportsmanship. It’s just science-ish.

McCarthy is, after all, a pseudoscience peddler, credited with helping to bring back such vaccine-preventable diseases as measles and whooping cough. On the media rounds she has explained how vaccines gave her son Evan autism, which she cured with a special diet and supplements.  She also promotes other autism therapies, like the hyperbaric oxygen chamber.

Sadly, there is no cure for autism. The link between vaccine and autism is not controversial within the scientific community because it’s been discredited. Read all about it here. In sum: The study on which the vaccine-autism theory is based involved 12 children and no control group. It has been retracted and revealed to be a work of data manipulation. Of course, Andrew Wakefield—who authored the report and lost his medical licence for misconduct—co-wrote a book with McCarthy, titled Callous Disregard.

Here’s how event chair Bernice Rachkowski explained the committee’s choice to the Ottawa Citizen: ”She’s funny, she’s very much a people person, she’s vivacious and full of life.” Plus, Rachkowski added, “she also appeals to our target demographic because we want to engage younger women in being aware of breast cancer, how to prevent it and to be aware of all the help that is available if they, their aunt or mom are going through it.”

In response, one of Canada’s leading infectious disease experts, Dr. Noni MacDonald, told Science-ish, “Jenny McCarthy is likely all the things this woman is saying, but she also disseminates misinformation that may be harmful to children.”

Since the news of McCarthy’s Ottawa appearance, a #DropJenny hashtag has spawned on Twitter, and local skeptics have lashed out. Dr. Joe Schwarcz (PhD), director of McGill University’s office for science and society, told Science-ish, “If an anti-vaccine (promoter) is what is needed to attract young women, I’m worried.” It seems the only link McCarthy has with health research is that she likes to routinely deny it. 

Schwarcz questioned if a credible Ottawa foundation is doing public health a disservice by giving McCarthy a platform. Dr. MacDonald asked if McCarthy will be paid with funds that were raised for regional cancer services. “Who would want to donate to an organization that chooses to pay someone well known for spreading false and dangerous information?”

Science-ish also wonders what the event says about the state of public-health discourse in Canada. Why is McCarthy a go-to health promoter? She actively works against science, and the best-available research evidence contradicts her messages. It’s not clear what drives her work in health, other than the fact she makes money selling lies.

Science-ish tried but was unable to contact Jenny McCarthy, Dr. Susan Dent, medical expert on the Bust A Move board, and event chair Bernice Rachkowsk. The communications co-ordinator and CEO at the Ottawa Regional Cancer Foundation also did not reply. 

In an effort to better understand how McCarthy became the celebrity face of breast health in Ottawa, here are questions Science-ish hopes the charity will answer. Science-ish will happily update this story when they do:

  1. Were you aware of McCarthy’s anti-vaccine views when you chose her for the Bust A Move event?
  2. Are you concerned about the public health implications of this choice?
  3. Do you see a conflict between McCarthy’s health messages and your work for health promotion?
  4. Do you really think McCarthy was the best choice to speak on health?
  5. How much is McCarthy being paid to appear at the event?
  6. Will those fees come from money raised for breast-cancer services?

Science-ish is a joint project of Maclean’s, the Medical Post and the McMaster Health Forum. Julia Belluz is the senior editor at the Medical Post. Got a tip? Seen something that’s Science-ish? Message her at julia.belluz@medicalpost.rogers.com or on Twitter @juliaoftoronto

 

Tags:
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

Fat vs. sugar in battle of the bulge

by Julia Belluz on Monday, January 28, 2013 10:46am - 0 Comments

Getty Images

In 1972, a British microbiologist-turned-physiologist named John Yudkin came out with the book Pure, White and Deadly. In it, he asserted that the diet wrecker to watch for was neither fat, nor wheat, nor salt—but sugar. The consumption of sucrose, he wrote, was linked with coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes, and he wanted everyone to know, as the title of his book suggested, that sugar can kill.

But timing is everything, and Yudkin may have been a bit too early with the idea about sugar’s association with body weight. The fat hypothesis—or the view that consuming fat caused people to plump up—was the dominant diet theme of the day, according to the British Medical Journal, and the evidence behind Yudkin’s ideas wasn’t strong enough to fend off the messaging from the powerful sugar lobby. By the time the anti-sugar crusader died in 1995, his book was out of print, and his ideas, out of favour.

(more…)

Tags: , , ,
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

Is this flu season bad? No one knows

by Julia Belluz on Friday, January 18, 2013 3:12pm - 0 Comments

There has been plenty of discussion about a particularly bad influenza season in Canada, and even more so in the U.S., as both nations appear to brim with feverish, coughing patients. Things have been so bad south of the border that New York state and Boston declared public states of emergency and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said that flu-related deaths have reached into epidemic territory.

But what does that actually mean? According to the CDC, the epidemic threshold for influenza—a virus that attacks your respiratory system, not your guts—is when related deaths account for more than 7.2 per cent of all deaths in a given week. For the week ending Jan. 12, 8.3 per cent of all deaths were due to pneumonia and influenza, just above the epidemic threshold.

This sounds scary, but the death counts from pneumonia and influenza actually aren’t all that high when compared to recent flu seasons. Check out the chart below: (more…)

Tags: , , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

What is known—and not known—about your flu medication

by Julia Belluz on Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:20am - 0 Comments

Sometimes, we selectively ignore information. We seek data that confirms our beliefs and biases, and brush off evidence that conflicts with our thinking.

Sometimes, though, it’s not OK to ignore evidence. Especially when it comes to public health. So Science-ish was astonished when the Public Health Agency of Canada announced plans to take “exceptional action” and release a supply of the influenza drug Tamiflu from the emergency national stockpile to “ensure Tamiflu remains available to those Canadians who need it.”

If Tamiflu, also known by its drug name oseltamivir, had meaty evidence behind it, the news would a boon. We’d encourage Canadians to access an effective medicine during flu season. If the drug did what the public health agency suggests— reduce the chances of getting the influenza and minimize the harms associated with the flu in vulnerable elderly folks and kids—the actions would be comforting.

But that’s not the case. The release demonstrated that the guardians of Canadian public health, and sometimes those who report on it, selectively ignore key information.

Allow Science-ish to explain.

When Tamiflu was approved for the treatment of influenza in the late-1990s it was considered an effective drug for shortening the duration of the influenza, minimizing person-to-person spread, and reducing complications such as pneumonia and even hospitalizations. This belief was based on early studies, all funded and carried out by the drug-maker Roche. The antiviral became one of the World Health Organization’s “essential medicines” and governments around the world began to stockpile it to the tune of $6.9 billion worldwide (2009 value). (more…)

Tags: , , ,
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

Good science vs. bad science

by Julia Belluz on Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:12pm - 0 Comments

CSA Images/Getty

What has been the real driver of violent crime in America? Not unemployment, or guns, or wealth disparities, or lack of access to education. According to a fascinating new Mother Jones article, it’s exposure to lead.

The piece builds a case around this thesis: “Gasoline lead is responsible for a good share of the rise and fall of violent crime over the past half century.” This isn’t totally crazy, since we know that lead is a destructive neurotoxin. But any skeptic out there would immediately wonder about the evidence behind such an encompassing claim, mainly because it rests mostly on population-level observational studies, which look at links between lead exposure in the environment and crime rates. As Dr. David Juurlink, a physician and researcher at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, told Science-ish, while lead could be the missing element in violent crime, “Many, many other factors also could, particularly in concert. Perhaps lead is one contributing factor, but it’s an abuse of the basic tenets of epidemiology to ascribe so much of the blame to lead.”

In other words, he added, a correlation between the two phenomena does not equal cause-and-effect.

Almost as soon as the article was published, debunkers were out in full force, picking apart the evidence behind the story. Even the author of the article, Kevin Drum, followed up with a blog post outlining the different types of evidence in the piece and the need for further research. But many a reader may have left the article thinking that the lead theory is more than just a theory; that it’s the little-known cause of criminal activity.

And it’s not the last, or even most offensive, article that will contain an incredible thesis about new science. So how do you avoid falling prey to bad science in health stories? This is a question Science-ish gets asked a lot, most recently related to an article published in Slate about Dr. Oz’s dubious use of medical evidence. Understanding evidence-based medicine and statistics takes years of practice and study, but the good news is there are a few very basic red flags to keep in mind when you’re reading about the health sciences.

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

The truth about superbugs and antibiotics

by Julia Belluz on Friday, January 4, 2013 4:31pm - 0 Comments

Staphyloccoccus aureus x 17,000 at 4 x 4 (Getty)

In a post about the most outrageous attacks on science in 2012, Science-ish asked you to pick the topic you’d like to see tackled first in the new year: you wanted the truth about antibiotics and superbugs.

It’s no wonder. The popular discourse about these rapidly multiplying, drug-resistant microbes is pretty freaky. An investigation by CBC’s Marketplace found deadly bacteria, like C. difficile, lurking in hotel rooms. Other stories have revealed that they are waiting to cuddle up with you in hospitals, and even peppering your chicken dinner.

Meanwhile, the British Medical Journal has reported that the dangers of superbugs may be over-hyped, turning poor germ-avoiding patients into hospital cleaners. But you, dear readers, know the cleansing light of evidence can wash away some of those fears. Here’s what the latest research tells us about antibiotics and superbugs:

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

7 key health trends for 2013

by Julia Belluz on Thursday, December 27, 2012 8:07am - 0 Comments

Getty Images

Forecasting the future may not quite gel with the evidence-informed approach at Science-ish, but it’s the time of year for breaking rules. With cautious certainty, here are seven trends in health you’ll hear more about in 2013—and beyond:

1. More ‘reverse innovation’ 

Most health-care innovation only marginally improves existing technology while it costs a lot more. During a recent Toronto talk, the CEO of Grand Challenges Canada, Dr. Peter Singer, argued that health innovation must focus on the “cost” part of the equation. He’s right, and as governments grapple with a flagging global economy, Science-ish expects it’s a refrain you’ll hear a lot in 2013. Related to this idea is the potential of “reverse innovation” or importing cost-effective technologies and systems from low- and middle-income countries to the industrialized world. (Eye clinics in Asia that offer quality but cut-rate cataract surgeries, for example, or low-cost digital X-rays for tuberculosis screening in India that could be used in remote communities here.)  Incorporating these ideas will require getting past vested interests, which will always be tricky—unless a troubled economic climate forces change.

(more…)

Tags:
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

2012: Outrageous attacks on science

by Julia Belluz on Friday, December 14, 2012 10:48am - 0 Comments

Slaven Vlasic/Getty

The year 2012 brought with it many opportunities for wielding a big, debunking stick and pointing it towards outrageous attacks on science. From the Science-ish archives, to be read with a festive beverage, here are the worst offenders from 2012:

1. DR. OZ, FAITH HEALER
Though he may have started out as one of America’s most-trusted MDs after earning a seal of approval from none other than Oprah Winfrey, the medical community has long known that Dr. Mehmet Oz can be a font of pseudoscience. This year, when he was in Toronto to give a motivational lecture about the “biology of blubber,” I had a chance to sit-down with Oz and grill him about his use of medical evidence. In particular, when asked about his promotion of raspberry ketones for weight loss—a dubious supplement—he said it was “an example of where I’m trying to give you hope.” Needless to say, he didn’t pass the evidence test. I’m pretty sure I was the only reporter in the room he didn’t hug that day.
Related link: Dr. Oz, faith healer

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

recent posts | older posts

Which vitamins and supplements actually work?

by Julia Belluz on Thursday, December 6, 2012 12:02pm - 0 Comments

Jon Feingersh/Blend Images/Getty

There’s a tendency to divide the world of pills in two: evil pharmaceuticals and nice supplements. When we’re looking at the outrageous claims on the labels of supplements—that they’ll help us lose weight, clear-up acne, live long lives—we somehow forgot that the natural-health business is a business like any other, and that in Canada, while there are loose regulations around these products, they are not necessarily safe or effective.

Unlike pharmaceuticals—which admittedly have their own evidence problems—”natural” pills don’t undergo rigorous testing before they reach the market. So some of the claims about them are simply lies or not based in good science. As Dr. Edzard Ernst, one of the world’s foremost experts on the evidence for alternative complementary medicine, told Science-ish: “It is a myth to assume that the supplement industry behaves any differently from any other industry. It is about making money, and all too often people are less than responsible in the pursuit of this aim.”

The good news is that there is strong evidence to either back or refute some common notions about supplements. Science-ish sifted through the research to identify indications for capsules that have compelling science behind them. Here’s the Science-ish guide to supplements:

Antioxidants for preventative health
Don’t mean to be alarmist here but the evidence suggests antioxidant supplements (beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and selenium) may actually kill you quicker.

Vitamin C for colds
This is a myth. As Science-ish has explained in the past, this regularly updated Cochrane review on vitamin C and the common cold shows that popping these pills every day does nothing to prevent colds and only maybe shortens their duration.

Vitamin D for a range of indications
From combating chronic pain to staving off cancer, this celebrated supplement seems to be recommended for everything. Unfortunately, the evidence for most vitamin D-related claims is weak. It doesn’t help reduce the risk of a range of cancers. There’s little evidence that these pills can alleviate chronic pain. As well, no link has been found between vitamin D and reductions in blood pressure, improved cardiovascular outcomes, and the prevention of fractures in older women. People whom vitamin D can help: those who have tested positive for a deficiency.

Evening primrose oil for a range of indications
In a word: useless. Read here about uses for menopausal symptoms, here about eczema, and here about premenstrual syndrome.

Glucosamine for osteoarthritis
According to high-quality studies, these supplements appear to help manage pain and improve physical function in people suffering with this joint disorder.

Melatonin for jet lag
Melatonin supplements are the closest thing we have to a cure for jet lag. As a 2009 systematic review pointed out, “Melatonin is remarkably effective in preventing or reducing jet lag, and occasional short-term use appears to be safe.” What’s more, melatonin may also be effective for treating a number of sleeping problems, as well as cluster headaches.

Probiotics for gut health
For some very specific indications—managing diarrhea in hospital settings or antibiotic-induced diarrhea—probiotics seem to be helpful. But despite their popularity for improving gut health, the jury is still out.

St. John’s wort for depression
The use of this stuff to manage depression is actually backed by strong evidence. A synthesis of 29 studies in over 5,000 patients from several countries found that those who took the plant extract in the trials “were superior to placebo, similarly effective as standard antidepressants, and had fewer side effects than standard antidepressants.”

Weight loss supplements
Lies, damned lies. Raspberry ketones, green coffee beans: don’t waste your money! If there was a tablet that could help with weight loss, we would not be in the midst of an obesity epidemic. In fact, Science-ish has yet to come across claims about a weight-loss supplement that are backed by good evidence. As a general rule, when a study about one of these “fat busters” suggests it’s effective, that’s probably because the experiment was poorly designed or it was done in animals or cells but not in people.

Your supplement of choice isn’t listed here?
Check out this user-friendly, science-based website for more information about a range of supplements.

Science-ish is a joint project of Maclean’s, the Medical Post and the McMaster Health Forum. Julia Belluz is the associate editor at the Medical Post. Got a tip? Seen something that’s Science-ish? Message her at julia.belluz@medicalpost.rogers.com or on Twitter @juliaoftoronto

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share

Previous

Next

From Macleans