Multilevel marketing distributors of dietary supplements and essential oils point to studies that they think constitute evidence that their products work. They don't understand why those studies are inadequate.
Last week, the results of ORBITA were published. This clinical trial tested coronary angioplasty and stenting versus optimal medical management in patients with single-vessel coronary artery disease. It was a resoundingly negative trial, meaning that adding stenting to drug management didn't result in detectable clinical improvement. What was distinctive about this trial is that it used a sham procedure (i.e., placebo) control,...
The Choosing Wisely campaign has invited the largest chiropractic organization in the United States to publish a list of interventions to avoid. The results, while not entirely without merit, consist of redundant or unnecessary recommendations. And there is a glaring absence of recommendations to avoid any of the blatant pseudoscience commonly practiced by chiropractors.
ASEAs marketing practices, in my opinion, are clearly deceptive. They use a lot of pseudoscientific claims representing the epitome of supplement industry misdirection and obfuscation. They use science as a marketing tool, not as a method for legitimately advancing our knowledge or answering questions about the efficacy of specific interventions.
A new cupping fad using silicone devices is gentler than traditional cupping, but even sillier. There is no evidence of health benefits.
In September, antivaccine "researchers" Christopher Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic published a study claiming to link aluminum adjuvants in vaccines to neuroinflammation and autism. Naturally, the antivaccine movement pointed to it as slam dunk evidence that vaccines cause autism. It's not. In fact, not only is it bad science, but it might well be fraudulent.
The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) found Functional Medicine lacking in evidence and said some treatments are harmful and dangerous. The AAFP is right and should stick to its conclusions.
When patients diagnosed with chronic Lyme are treated, no matter what happens as a response to the treatment is considered by believers to be evidence in support of the diagnosis. If they get better, then that is evidence that the treatment is working. If they get worse, then that is evidence that the treatment is working and they are experiencing the JHR...