WP: Critics Object to 'Pseudoscience' Center

[MountainLaurel]

The impending national discussion about broadening access to health care, improving medical practice and saving money is giving a group of scientists an opening to make a once-unthinkable proposal: Shut down the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health.

The notion that the world's best-known medical research agency sponsors studies of homeopathy, acupuncture, therapeutic touch and herbal medicine has always rankled many scientists. That the idea for its creation 17 years ago came from a U.S. senator newly converted to alternative medicine's promise didn't help.
ad_icon

Although NCCAM has a comparatively minuscule budget and although it is a "center" rather than an "institute," making it officially second-class in the NIH pantheon, the principle is what mattered. But as NIH's budget has flattened in recent years, better use for NCCAM's money has also become an issue.

"With a new administration and President Obama's stated goal of moving science to the forefront, now is the time for scientists to start speaking up about issues that concern us," Steven Salzberg, a genome researcher and computational biologist at the University of Maryland, said last week. "One of our concerns is that NIH is funding pseudoscience."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031602139.html

[Taverner]

1. Are they Emperical, Scientific Method based studies of omeopathy, acupuncture, therapeutic touch?

As in "lets see if its quack or not"

[MountainLaurel]

5. I would guess so

NIH grants are pretty strict about the protocols you have to follow. Unless, of course, it's akin to what happened with the Faith-Based program, where all existing criteria about what you have to do to receive a grant went out the window.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

2. How short-sighted and stupid.

The point of this Center is to explore and determine effectiveness of various alternative therapies -- if no one is checking them out, we may be missing treatments that can benefit people.

Having benefited from many "alternative" treatments such as meditation, yoga, and acupuncture I hope the Center is allowed to keep at its work.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. I agree with you

What gets me is they are down on the use of herbs. Hello--where exactly did the modern pharmaceutical industry come from? The original tonics and the like were brewed or developed from plants and herbs. And we are discovering more plants and herbs every day, including how indigenous people use them. To shut down this center would mean shutting the door on finding very useful medicines.

Like you, I have benefited greatly from "alternative" treatments and will continue to use them because for me they work better than other treatments.

[TZ]

9. "if no one is checking them out"

I can assure you most of this psuedoscience has been studied again and again and again. Multiple scientific studies have debunked many of these alternatives, but supports insist on more research until they get the results they like..:eyes: (I worked at NIH for awhile, I understand how the game is played).
A FEW of these alternatives have shown SOME scientific legitimacy..acupuncture for one.
For all the funding that goes to this nonsense, there are orphan diseases that are being neglected...I want NIH funding SCIENCTIFIC RESEARCH. Pseudoscience doesn't belong there.

[Why Syzygy]

10. Can you post samples of those

that have been "studied again and again and again"?

eta:
It doesn't sound like they want to STOP all studies on these treatments, but rather move them to different agencies and labs.

Research in alternative medicine is done elsewhere at NIH, notably in the National Cancer Institute, whose Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine also has a budget of $122 million.

Here. I'll do it. These are the kinds of things that some scientists will not research, especially if they are funded by pharmaceutical companies. Additionally, the NCCAM focuses on lifestyle, habits, and staying HEALTHY, with emphasis on quality of life, rather than 100% focus on disease. How many scientists at your office want to research these?

Research Results
Spotlight on New Research Results
grapes
Grape Seed Extract May Help Neurodegenerative Diseases

Researchers recently examined the potential role of a particular grape seed polyphenol extract in preventing and treating certain neurodegenerative disorders. (Feb 2009) More
Cocoa beans in a cacao pod
NCCAM Researchers Investigate Effects of Cocoa in People With Hypertension

Researchers recently conducted a rigorous trial to investigate the potential health benefits of cocoa to lower blood pressure, improve endothelial dysfunction, and/or lessen insulin resistance. (Dec 2008) More
Electroacupuncture needles in arm
Electroacupuncture May Help Alcohol Addiction

In a recent study, researchers examined the effects of electroacupuncture on alcohol intake by alcohol-preferring rats. (Oct 2008) More
Tai Chi
Tai Chi Chih Improves Sleep Quality in Older Adults

Tai chi chih may serve as an effective alternative for people with moderate sleep complaints. (Jul 2008) More
http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/

[beam me up scottie]

12. "It doesn't sound like they want to STOP all studies on these treatments"

Exactly the point I was making in post #7.

For the record, most skeptics agree that botanicals, relaxation therapy techniques and even acupuncture can be beneficial. We do not oppose more study on alternative medicine that works, we just want practitioners to use science-based research to prove it.

Advocates of altie meds only hurt their cause by lumping everything together and demanding that we pay for all of it.

I have been practicing meditation, yoga and tai chi for years, and while it didn't prevent or cure my cancer, I have enjoyed many other benefits.

[beam me up scottie]

11. You can duplicate some of these in your lab, Sue. Take the reiki one, for example:.

Grab a bunch of rats, perform reiki on half of them, and sham reiki on the others.

Then, strap some tiny blood pressure cuffs and electrodes on them, put them in a cage and have someone sneak up on them and yell "BOO!" really loud (apparently that's stressful for rats).

Have one of your assistants record their blood pressure and heart rates, compare your findings with those of the other researchers, and voila!, science!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Sounds to me like they want to shut down research

There have been studies in these fields--and in the case of acupuncture, if memory serves, the results have shown that it does, indeed, work. (And then there's actual evidence in the field, since it is used in China and elsewhere in the East for all sorts of things.) I would be more taken with what they are saying if they could point out studies that proved these methods to be ineffective. I don't see that here. What I do see is scientists out to grab funding for their field of expertise by shutting out other fields.

[Orrex]

8. re: acupuncture

It is more correct to say that there appears to be some indication that the treatment can have some measurable effect upon pain management, though it is as yet unclear whether this is the result of the placebo effect (or the like) or an actual physiological alteration effected by the insertion of the needles.

One thing is abundantly clear, however; there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that acupuncture has any ameliorating effect upon disease or injury separate from pain management, despite claims to the contrary (e.g. "acupuncture cured my sinus infection" etc.).

I would be more taken with what they are saying if they could point out studies that proved these methods to be ineffective.

That's not how it works, though. The burden is on the proponent to demonstrate that the treatment is effective.

What I do see is scientists out to grab funding for their field of expertise by shutting out other fields.

Practically speaking, though, is it not more sensible to fund those areas of research that have been shown (or which might prove) to have statistically significant and empirically verifiable results? Acupuncture and homeopathy can't claim such a record, and indeed their underlying theories are so far outside of verifiable science that a great deal would need to be changed about biology, chemistry, and physics before we could accept that these "treatments" actually work as advertised.

Sure, there might be a paradigm shift that would accomodate these treatments, but to execute such a shift, it'll take a lot more than subjective testimonial and informal, uncontrolled "evidence in the field."


The multi-billion dollar alternative medicine industry has plenty of money to run these studies without even bothering with government aid. If several objective, peer-reviewed studies were to show that acupuncture or homeopathy has significant merit, then government funding would follow. Until then...

[Why Syzygy]

6. Public Outcry ...

10 ... 9 ... 8 ...

[beam me up scottie]

7. "can be studied...where they would need to compete head-to-head with conventional research projects"

NCCAM has grown steadily since its founding in 1992, largely at the insistence of Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), as the Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM) with a budget of $2 million. In 1998, NIH director and Nobel laureate Harold Varmus pushed to have all alternative medicine research done through NIH's roughly two dozen institutes, with OAM coordinating, and in some cases paying for, the studies. Harkin parried with legislation that turned OAM into a higher-status "center" (although not a full-fledged "institute"), and boosted its budget from $20 million to $50 million. NCCAM's budget this year is about $122 million.


The entire NIH alternative medicine portfolio is about $300 million a year, out of a total budget of about $29 billion. (NIH will get an additional $10.4 billion in economic stimulus money over the next two years, of which $31 million is expected to go to NCCAM.)

***

"What has happened is that the very fact NIH is supporting a study is used to market alternative medicine," said Steven Novella, a neurologist at Yale School of Medicine and editor of the Web site Science-Based Medicine (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org), where much of the anti-NCCAM discussion is taking place. "It is used to lend an appearance of legitimacy to treatments that are not legitimate."

***

At the same time, it's difficult to determine the clinical implications of some of the positive studies.
For example, reiki -- but not sham treatment -- blunted the rise in heart rate, but not the rise in blood pressure, in rats put under stress by loud noise. Therapeutic touch, a different modality, increased the growth of normal bone cells in culture dishes, but decreased the growth of bone cancer cells.

***

Critics of alternative medicine say the vast majority of studies of homeopathy, acupuncture, therapeutic touch and other treatments based on unconventional understandings of physiology and disease have shown little or no effect. Further, they argue that the field's more-plausible interventions -- such as diet, relaxation, yoga and botanical remedies -- can be studied just as well in other parts of NIH, where they would need to compete head-to-head with conventional research projects.

Since most people won't bother to read the article, here are the highlights:


* "NIH director and Nobel laureate Harold Varmus pushed to have all alternative medicine research done through NIH's roughly two dozen institutes, with OAM coordinating, and in some cases paying for, the studies."

* "The entire NIH alternative medicine portfolio is about $300 million a year and NIH will get an additional $10.4 billion in economic stimulus money over the next two years, of which $31 million is expected to go to NCCAM."

* "NIH is supporting a study (that) is used to market alternative medicine"

* "Most of NCCAM's results have been negative or inconclusive, not positive and encouraging."

* "it's difficult to determine the clinical implications of some of the positive studies."

* "Critics of alternative medicine argue...that the field's more-plausible interventions -- such as diet, relaxation, yoga and botanical remedies -- can be studied just as well in other parts of NIH"



Why are alternative medicine manufacturers and advocates so opposed to science-based research?

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. "Why are alternative medicine manufacturers and advocates so opposed to science-based research?"

For the same reason that religious folk don't like it when science comes poking around them: science-based research has a disturbing tendency to shatter deeply held beliefs.

[Why Syzygy]

20. Explain to me

how this study is "science-based research".

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/11/1140

[beam me up scottie]

27. And they're all experts at moving the goalposts when that happens.

I don't understand how people can be so dense when it comes to this issue, if the alternative medicine industry wants our money, they should have to use science based research to prove their products are effective and safe.

Of course the true believers always whine that not ENOUGH research has been done yet, or the right KIND of research, or that the FDA, research scientists and doctors are all in on Teh Conspirassy.

[Why Syzygy]

28. I'm still waiting for one of the scientists

to explain how this study is "science based research"? Please?


http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/11/1140

[beam me up scottie]

30. Have you considered asking the scientists who did the research?

Being a vegetarian, I tend to avoid red herring.

[Why Syzygy]

31. I've got someone on it.

Maybe. I believe in leaving it to the experts. All I know is, it isn't science.

[trotsky]

32. Careful not to break the DU rules. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

33. If you "believe in leaving it to the experts" how can you declare that "it isn't science" ?

I question the scientific credentials of anyone who would use the term "science freak".

[Celebration]

13. Here is what I think

The NIH should have a very large budget that is earmarked for treatments that will not financially benefit any corporation. I object to my tax dollars being spent for drug research, and then get screwed by the monopoly profits from that very drug. This is not a good research $$ model.

What is severely underfunded are new treatments that could be made from things that are not patentable. These could be labeled "alternative" or they could be from drugs that are not patentable.

As an example, although this was a Canadian university, capsaicin injected into islet cells of advanced Type 1 rats ended up curing diabetes. This would be easy to test in people, but the researchers can't find the money because capsaicin is not patentable.

[trotsky]

15. You repeat a very common misunderstanding.

Using your particular example - the chemical capsaicin may not be patentable BUT a new process or treatment that USES capsaicin most definitely is. It is simply not true that there are all these "natural" cures available that languish because no one wants to work on it for the lack of being able to secure a patent.

[Celebration]

16. but that is REALLY hard to enforce

A process can be patented, but if the same unpatentable ingredient is available elsewhere, there would be so many violations that they would be virtually impossible to enforce.

There is a particular type of B6 that has been reseached by a company as having huge benefits for diabetes complications. Rather than allow that particular form of B6 be sold as a supplement, the FDA has disallowed the supplement form of it. Why? The company that developed the research was about to go bankrupt, and said that they could not market it if it existed in a cheaper form. The company might have owned the patent for using B6 for diabetes complications, but the purchasing public could buy it anyway, much more cheaply. Is anyone going to take a person to court for using it for diabetes complications?

[trotsky]

17. Not any harder than a lot of other patents.

If someone else comes along to offer the same treatment using the same ingredient, you sue them for patent infringement. If they can't prove they discovered it first, or that their process is significantly different than yours, you win.

Since you don't provide any details for your B6 story, I don't know if you give a realistic accounting of it.

[Celebration]

18. here ya go

http://compmed.wordpress.com/big-pharma-wants-fda-to-ban-vitamin-b6/

[trotsky]

19. OK so that's a blog post with no references.

Worse, the only link given (at the end of the post) goes to a totally unrelated topic. Is there a factual article somewhere with the precise details?

[Celebration]

21. here is a 2005 story about the economics of this

http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2005/10/17/story2.html

Their big problem was that the supplement was already widely available as a supplement. Obviously the FDA decided to protect them from this price competition by declaring this particular part of B6 a drug, which it is not, even though processes can be patented.

[trotsky]

22. Anything less than 4 years old that actually supports what you claimed?

Although from that article:

Intellectual property law does not allow BioStratum to own patents on pyridoxamine, but the company has a pending patent application on its method of obtaining pyridoxamine from vitamin B6.

Which reinforces what I claimed above.

[Celebration]

23. here

http://www.ahpa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=69&aId=519&zId=1

[trotsky]

24. Looks like the FDA was following the law.

The 1994 DSHEA law - introduced and co-sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), signed into law by President Bill Clinton (D).

If you read the actual statement by the FDA, they deny the petitioner's request to
1) state in writing that dietary supplements that contain pyridoxamine are adulterated under the Act
or
2) exercise its (the FDA's) enforcement authority under the Act to remove from United States interstate commerce dietary supplements containing pyridoxamine

So what was the problem again?

[Celebration]

25. they say it is not a supplement

It's a drug, even though it was on an industry list of supplements in 1994. It's ridiculous.

The FDA protects drug companies at all cost. This is the type of research that the NIH should be doing, and we should be able to buy it as a supplement, much, much cheaper than a drug.

This whole thread started because of what type research the NIH should be doing--I think it should be doing a lot more research on things that are not patentable. Let the drug companies pay for research for their exotic molecules, and patent them.

Instead, what we have is the FDA trying to limit the definition of supplements so that there are more $$$ for the pharmaceutical industry. This company did spend a lot of money on studies, but that's their problem. They should have known it was a supplement. The FDA made a ridiculous, unsupportable finding.

[Why Syzygy]

26. That's life in the good ole boyz club.

The Takers.

[trotsky]

29. As I just said, and as you completely ignored...

the FDA followed the law. It may be a sucky law, but it's the law nonetheless. Co-sponsored by a reliable liberal senator and signed by President Clinton.

[Celebration]

34. no, they didn't

If someone had the money to take them to court, they would lose. They are ignoring evidence that this was in supplements before 1994, purposefully.

[trotsky]

35. Okey doke, legal expert. n/t