Nearly a month ago, I expressed my dismay and displeasure at the infiltration fo quackademic medicine into what is arguably the premier medical journal in the world, The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in the form of a highly credulous review on the use of acupuncture for low back pain that brought eternal shame on the hallowed pages of a once-great journal. As Mark Crislip put it, trust, once damaged or lost, is very hard to restore, and I definitely lost a lot of trust for the NEJM compared to what I had for it a month ago. Since then, I’ve been keeping my eyes out for other examples of quackademic medicine infiltrating various peer-reviewed journals. Unfortunately, I have not lacked for examples.

Fresh in my memory, though, remains the stench of quackademic medicine in the NEJM. Unfortunately, just as the faint odor of urine can be revived by hot and humid weather, the stench of quackademic medicine at the NEJM was restored, at least in my memory, by an article that a reader sent to me. Apparently someone was interested in just who some of the writers of the NEJM article were. At the time, when I wrote about the article, I didn’t really care too much about any of the authros other than the lead author, Dr. Brian Berman. Apparently this reader thought I should check out at least one of the other authors, which I proceeded to do. I happened to pick Dr. Helene M. Langevin of the University of Vermont. (Who knew Vermont had quackademic medicine?) One thing led to another (PubMed, specifically), and suddenly I found this gem of a quackademic medicine article by Dr. Langevin in, of all places PLoS ONE, entitled Electrical Impedance of Acupuncture Meridians: The Relevance of Subcutaneous Collagenous Bands.

Senior author? Dr. Langevin.

Funding source? What do you think? The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), of course!

Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

In one of the most prominent news stories written about electronic cigarettes to date, Michael Felberbaum has done a tremendous job of clearing through the smoke created by the FDA press conference of last summer and presenting an accurate picture of the electronic cigarette issue to the public. In an Associated Press article appearing yesterday, Felberbaum doesn’t merely repeat the misleading statements of the FDA on electronic cigarette safety, but instead presents a balanced and accurate picture of the relative safety of vaping compared to smoking.

Jason Healy, president of Blu cigarettes, sums it up wittily but perfectly when he states: “When you’re talking about a product that’s essentially Russian roulette, and the alternative is much, much better, you can imagine they’re [vapers are] pretty happy. Up until e-cigs, there was quit or die.”

The article mentions that “the FDA has said its tests found the liquid in electronic cigarettes contains substances known to be toxic to humans — besides nicotine, which is itself toxic in large doses — as well as carcinogens that occur naturally in the tobacco in cigarettes.” However, it then presents the rest of the story:

“However, the level of those carcinogens was comparable to those found in nicotine replacement therapy like gum and patches, because the nicotine in all of the products is extracted from tobacco, said Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health. ‘It’s kind of deceptive to say, ‘Oh, my God, there’s carcinogens in there,’” Siegel said. “The importance is what level of carcinogens. It turns out that the levels are so low that they are 1,400 times lower than in (regular) cigarettes.’”

“Christian Berkey, CEO of Johnson Creek Smoke Juice, a Wisconsin company that makes the “juice” for e-cigarettes, said its products have only seven ingredients, none of which has ever been deemed unfit for human consumption. ‘There’s no combustion, and that’s what it really comes down to,’ said Berkey, who has asked the FDA to test its products and is awaiting results.”

“And Siegel said that while e-cigarettes haven’t been studied in clinical trials, the current evidence is ’sufficient to conclude that these products are much safer than smoking.’”

“Berkey and Healy said they are fine working with the FDA to regulate the products.”

“‘(The FDA) should be regulating it in a way that really allows the potential of the product to be realized rather than a way that just takes it off the market completely and puts an end to the possibility of what really could be a lifesaving product for many smokers,’ Siegel said.”

Source: University of Nottingham
Date: 31 August 2010

Summary:

Large scale, cost-effective stem cell factories able to keep up with demand for new therapies to treat a range of human illnesses are a step closer to reality, thanks to a scientific breakthrough involving researchers at The University of Nottingham. In a paper published in the September edition of Nature Materials, a team of Nottingham scientists led by Professor Morgan Alexander in the University’s School of Pharmacy, reveal they have discovered some man-made acrylate polymers which allow stem cells to reproduce while maintaining their pluripotency. Stem cells tagged with a fluorescent agent which allow them to be seen were placed onto the polymer spots. The scientists were then able to watch the stem cells and observe which polymers were most successful at promoting the most growth while also maintaining the pluripotency of the stem cells.

The firing of Dr. James Enstrom after 36 years of continuous employment as a researcher at the UCLA School of Public Health, on the grounds that his research is no longer aligned with the mission of the department in which he works, is highlighted in an article on the Fox News web site.

The article quotes me as pointing out the implications of this story for academic freedom and scientific integrity: “Dr. Michael Siegel, professor and associate chairman at Boston University’s School of Public Health, says the reasoning raises some red flags. “The mission of the department is to study the impacts of the environment on human health and that’s exactly what Enstrom does,” Siegel told FoxNews.com. “…What the department appears to be saying is it’s not the nature of his research but the nature of his findings.” Siegel says he doesn’t even agree with a lot of Enstrom’s findings, but he agrees with his right to relay them without fear of losing his job. “The significance of this is a threat to academic freedom and it’s also a threat to academic science,” Siegel said. “If scientists have to produce work that meets a certain view to keep their jobs, researchers are going to stop publishing negative findings for fear of being fired.”

The Rest of the Story

The good news is that UCLA has decided to reinstate Dr. Enstrom to his position until the appeals process is completed, or until March 31 of next year, whichever comes first. This ensures that Dr. Enstrom will have the opportunity to contest his non-reappointment and to present any evidence relevant to the issue of whether the grounds for his termination were valid.

It is unclear whether the threat by several state legislators to hold a hearing in Sacramento on the issue played a role in the University’s decision to reinstate Dr. Enstrom pending his appeal, but it is normal policy to allow an individual to retain their position while the appeals process is being conducted.

There’s something that has puzzled me about the recent stem cell decision that led to an injunction that prevents the NIH from spending any funds on research involving human embryonic stem cells. I’ve read the decision (pdf), and it appears to be incredibly broad and damaging to NIH funding in general.

I could understand an injunction based on a finding that the policy violated federal law: I think that’s stupid, but I get it. What I don’t understand is the finding that NIH policy causes harm to the plaintiffs (the researchers who brought the suit):

Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

by Elizabeth Grossman

The American Public Health Association’s (APHA) Occupational Health & Safety Section has announced the winners of its 2010 Occupational Health & Safety Awards. In a year that has been marked by what David Michaels, Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, has described as “a series of workplace tragedies” – among them the deaths of 29 miners at the Upper Big Branch Mine and 11 workers on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico – noting both the honorees, and those in whose honor the awards are given, is a reminder of the enormous work, courage, and long history of efforts to ensure safety at work.

For their outstanding work to improve workers’ health and safety rights and working conditions both in the U.S. and internationally, the 2010 awards recognize five individuals:

• Dr. Sherry Baron, coordinator for Occupational Health Disparities at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health;
• Tom O’Connor, Executive Director of the National Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health (COSH) Network and principal coordinator of the Protecting Workers Alliance;
• Stephen A. Mitchell, the current Health and Safety Representative for United Automobile Workers (UAW) Local Union 974, representing 5,500 workers at Caterpillar Inc. in the Peoria, IL area;
• Wally Reardon, a communications tower climber who has dedicated himself to improving safety practices and standards in his fast-growing and dangerous industry; and
• Dr. Jeong-ok Kong, an occupational health physician who has advocated on behalf of Korean auto and rail industry workers through the Korea Institute of Labor Safety and Health, (KILSH), and most recently for semiconductor industry cancer victims through the organization known as SHARPS (Supporters of Health And Rights of People in Semiconductor Industry).

Their work carries on that begun a century ago by Alice Hamilton, considered to be the founder of occupational health in the United States; by Lorin Kerr, who served for over forty years as a physician for the United Mine Workers and was instrumental in passage of the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969; and by Tony Mazzocchi, who was one of the most influential labor leaders in the field of occupational health and safety, founder of the Labor Party, and instrumental in enactment of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970. It is in their honor that the APHA awards are given. The long history represented here is a reminder of the challenges and dedication involved in this work.

I was heartened to see Dr. Jeong-ok Kong’s name among the honorees, because I’ve become familiar with her work while writing about occupational and environmental health issues in the electronics industries. I first met her at a meeting in Manila in 2008 and the impact of her work has grown steadily since then.

Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Twenty California state legislators, under the letterhead of Assemblyman Dan Logue, have written the Chancellor of UCLA, expressing concern that the firing of Professor James Enstrom after 34 years at the University appears to be an effort to silence his dissenting views on the health effects of fine particulate matter.

The letter demands that Dr. Enstrom not be dismissed before his appeal has been fully evaluated. Otherwise, the legislators threaten to hold a hearing in Sacramento on the matter.

The letter states: “We are writing you as members of the California State Legislature regarding a serious personnel matter. … Based on our understanding of the situation, [Enstrom] has not been given valid justification for the termination of his 34-year exemplary academic career at the UCLA School of Public Health. It appears to us that he is being dismissed in order to silence his scientific views on the health effects of fine particulate air pollution. In particular, we are concerned that he is being deprived of his academic freedom as a UCLA faculty member to speak out against draconian diesel vehicle regulations approved by the California Air Resources Board in 2007 and 2008.” …

“To ensure that his appeal is given proper consideration, we request that he be allowed to retain his current faculty position until his appeal has been fully evaluated. If Dr. Enstrom is dismissed before his appeal has been fully evaluated, we plan to promptly hold a hearing in Sacramento on this matter. In particular, we will allow Dr. Enstrom and others the opportunity to present evidence regarding academic freedom and scientific integrity at UCLA, particularly regarding the circumstances surrounding his dismissal.”

The Rest of the Story

As I have written, the stated basis for Enstrom’s termination is bogus. His termination letter states that he was fired because his research is not aligned with the mission of the Environmental Health Sciences department. However, the mission of the department is to study the health effects of environmental pollutants, and that is exactly what Dr. Enstrom’s research does.

Apparently, the department faculty interprets alignment with the department’s mission as meaning that the findings of one’s research must be aligned with the mission of supporting regulation. Negative findings are apparently not allowed. This is an interference with academic freedom, because if one expresses a dissenting opinion, one risks being found not in alignment with the department, and this could lead to non-reappointment. It is also a threat to scientific integrity.

Readers may also want to see this article in the UCLA Daily Bruin.

Lucency in relation of right ischipubic ramus. This likely represents asymmetrically enlarged ischiopubic synchondrosis is a well-known and frequent finding on radiologic workup of prepubertal children, and is a normal variant which can be misinterpreted.

 Reference – Am J Roentgenol. 2004 Feb;182(2):361-5. Asymmetric closure of ischiopubic synchondrosis in pediatric patients: correlation with foot dominance.

From Sumer’s Radiology Site http://www.sumerdoc.blogspot.com -The Top Radiology Magazine. Teleradiology Providers at www.teleradproviders.com Mail us at sales@teleradproviders.com

This post is part of a Nature Blog Focus on hallucinogenic drugs in medicine and mental health, inspired by a recent Nature Reviews Neuroscience paper, The neurobiology of psychedelic drugs: implications for the treatment of mood disorders, by Franz Vollenweider & Michael Kometer. This article will be available, open-access, until September 23. For more information on this Blog Focus, including a Table of Contents, please visit Nature editor Noah Gray’s blog, Nothing’s Shocking.

___________________________

ON August 15th, 1951, an outbreak of hallucinations, panic attacks and psychotic episodes swept through the town of Saint-Pont-Esprit in southern France, hospitalizing dozens of its inhabitants and leaving five people dead. Doctors concluded that the incident occurred because bread in one of the town’s bakeries had been contaminated with ergot, a toxic fungus that grows on rye. But according to investigative journalist Hank Albarelli, the CIA had actually dosed the bread with d-lysergic acid diethylamide-25 (LSD), an extremely potent hallucinogenic drug derived from ergot, as part of a mind control research project.

Although we may never learn the truth behind the events at Saint-Pont-Esprit, it is now well known that the United States Army experimented with LSD on willing and unwilling military personnel and civilians. Less well known is the work of a group of psychiatrists working in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, who pioneered the use of LSD as a treatment for alcoholism, and claimed that it produced unprecedented rates of recovery. Their findings were soon brushed under the carpet, however, and research into the potential therapeutic effects of psychedelics was abruptly halted in the late 1960s, leaving a promising avenue of research unexplored for some 40 years.

Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

An article published online ahead of print in the journal Tobacco Control accuses the tobacco companies of using YouTube to market cigarettes (see: Elkin L, Thomson G, Wilson N. Connecting world youth with tobacco brands: YouTube and the internet policy vacuum on Web 2.0. Tobacco Control 2010).

According to the article: “The authors conducted a YouTube search using five leading non-Chinese cigarette brands worldwide. The themes and content of up to 40 of the most viewed videos returned for each search were analysed: a total of 163 videos.”

The article concludes that: “Pro-tobacco videos have a significant presence on YouTube, consistent with indirect marketing activity by tobacco companies or their proxies.”

Media coverage of the article disseminated worldwide the conclusion that cigarette companies are now using YouTube to market their products and get around restrictions on traditional forms of marketing. For example, the headline of an article on The Medical News read: “Tobacco Companies Use Web 2.0 Media to Get Around Marketing Restrictions.”

The Rest of the Story

Despite their claim that tobacco companies are using YouTube to advertise cigarettes, the authors provide no evidence that this is the case.

It is very possible that individuals, not affiliated with the tobacco companies, have produced videos that portray cigarettes and cigarette brands. Has this not occurred to the study authors?

Before making the claim that cigarette companies are responsible for these YouTube videos, the authors need to provide evidence that the companies are behind the videos. This is a serious allegation, since it would put the tobacco companies in violation of a number of laws and agreements.

The only “evidence” that the authors provide is that some of the videos appear to be professionally made. This does not prove anything, however, since the ability to produce professional-looking videos is now widely available.

In fact, two major tobacco companies responded to the article by publicly denying that they are behind these YouTube videos.

British American Tobacco was quoted as stating: “”It is absolutely not our policy to use social networking sites such as Facebook or YouTube to promote our tobacco product brands, and not even the authors of this report claim we have done so. Using social media could breach local advertising laws and our own International Marketing Standards, which apply to our companies worldwide. Our employees, agencies and service providers should never use social media to promote our tobacco brands.”

Philip Morris was quoted as stating: “Philip Morris USA does not post cigarette brand marketing videos on YouTube. In fact, PM USA has communicated with YouTube in the past asking them to remove YouTube video content that it believed infringed on PM USA’s intellectual property rights.”

Since the companies deny being responsible for the posting of these videos, it is incumbent upon the researchers of the study to document or at least provide evidence that the companies are behind this before making such an insinuation.

The rest of the story is that this article makes a serious but unsupported allegation against the tobacco companies. This undocumented accusation appears to be a recent phenomenon in tobacco control. The Rest of the Story has previously revealed a recent trend in undocumented accusations in tobacco control.

My sense is that the reason for this trend in the use of undocumented accusations is the tobacco industry’s decision, some time around 2000, to discontinue its oversight of the claims being made by anti-smoking groups. Prior to that time, the tobacco companies would respond publicly and immediately to any undocumented claims. Since then, the companies have basically let anti-smoking groups make any claims they want. It used to be that we in tobacco control would be very careful to document any accusations against the industry because we knew our feet would be held to the fire. However, this is no longer the case and so anti-smoking groups and researchers are becoming much more lackadaisical about their documentation of allegations against the industry.

However, in my view, these undocumented accusations represent a deterioration of the scientific integrity of the tobacco control movement.