Nov
20
2008
I am on a tighter than usual schedule this week because I have to produce two SGU podcasts, as I will be away next week for the Thanksgiving holiday. Further, there were some interesting reader comments I wanted to respond to at length, so I will need to make that into my post for today. (Fear not, I should be able to keep my usual posting schedule through the holiday.)
Back from the Dead
DrDirk wrote this comment on my post about Zak Dunlap, the boy who was pronounced brain dead but ultimately recovered, in my opinion because a serious mistake was made in reading a brain scan. DrDirk relates his personal and recent experience with a brain death issue at the same hospital and with the same doctor.
First, I do want to express my sincere sympathies for DrDirk, who is relating a personal recent tragedy - the death of his son and his son’s friend (both 20) last week after a 4 wheeler accident. Both boys were treated at Witchita General Hospital, where they were treated for severe brain injuries, without other significant injuries.
Continue Reading »
Nov
17
2008
Clinical research tends to follow a certain arc: first smaller and preliminary studies are done to see if there is a potential for a new treatment or approach, then larger and more tightly designed studies are done exploring the relevant research questions, and finally large, double-blind, placebo-controlled consensus trials are completed and the basic question of efficacy is settled.
In scientific jargon we often talk about the null hypothesis, the hypothesis that a new claim is not true, or in the context of medicine that a new treatment does not work. The question for a study is framed as follows: does the data support the rejection of the null hypothesis. This is not a subtle or unimportant distinction, it puts the burden of proof on demonstrating the positive new claim - that a treatment works. Unless the data compels us to reject the null hypothesis, it is retained as the default conclusion. Therefore, in these large and well-controlled trials, if the treatment does not work consistently and both clinically and statistically significantly better than placebo, we do not reject the null hypothesis. In practice we conclude that the treatment does not work and it is appropriately discarded in favor of better treatments or new ideas.
Unless of course you live in the alternate universe of acupuncture research (or more generally that of complementary and alternative medicine - CAM).
Continue Reading »
Nov
14
2008
Reflexology is pure, unadulterated, grade-A nonsense. That isn’t stopping some UK schools from spending £90,000 to provide reflexology treatments for aggressive and anti-social behavior in students under 13. As reported by the Guardian, Lambeth council in south London is planning on spending taxpayer money on charlatans to address problem students.
Reflexology
Reflexology is based upon the belief that the body is divided into zones, and these zones are mapped on the hands and feet. The reflexology research website explains:
Reflexology is the physical act of applying pressure to the feet and hand with specific thumb, finger and hand techniques without the use of oil or lotion. it is based on a system of zones and reflex areas that reflect an image of the body on the feet and hands with a premise that such work effects a physical change to the body.
This is an archaic homonculus or mapping-based system - the idea that one part of the body maps to the entire body. Iridology is another example - proponents believe that the flecks in the iris relate directly to specific organs or parts of the body.
Continue Reading »