RE: Which CAM therapies merit study?

[Guest guest]

….Dr. Offit is badly in need of a colonic! Vern Saboe From: oregondcs [mailto:oregondcs ] On Behalf Of Lyndon McGillSent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:50 PMTo: oregondcs Subject: Which CAM therapies merit study? Docs:Interesting but typical medical perspective on CAM therapies by Offit, M.D. For those of you registered with WebMD, here is the link to the video:http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/763604?src=mp & spon=38Lyndon McGill, D.C.EvolvHealth Wellness Advisory Council MemberSalem, Oregonwww.SalemSpineClinic.comwww.EvolvingDaily.comWhich Complementary and Alternative Therapies Merit Study? A. Offit, MDPosted: 05/17/2012Hi. My name is Offit. I am speaking to you today from the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. I thought I would talk about a viewpoint piece that appeared in the most recent issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.[1] It involved studying complementary and alternative medicines, specifically focusing on the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. This center was born as the Office of Alternative Medicine, in 1992, by the influence of 2 Iowa politicians. One was Tom Harkin, who believed that bee pollen had cured his hay fever. The other was Berkley Bedell, who believed that cow colostrum had cured his Lyme disease. Their notion was that alternative medicines, if studied, would move into the mainstream.Since the founding in 1992, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) has received about $1.6 billion of federal money to study a variety of things. What they have studied has been disappointing. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to see whether prayer treated AIDS; to see whether prayer could promote wound healing after breast reconstruction surgery; to see whether coffee enemas could treat pancreatic cancer; to see whether magnets (in mattresses or otherwise) could improve carpal tunnel syndrome, migraines, or arthritis; in addition to whether lemon or lavender scents could improve arthritis. I think the disappointing part of these studies is that they are not based on any biological principle. In fact, they seem to hark back to a much more distant time, before we really understood the pathophysiologic basis of diseases and were able to direct treatments towards them.You could argue that negative studies are of some value, even when they are not based on any sound biological principle. For example, when Wakefield claimed that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine caused autism, or when there were fears that thimerosal and ethyl mercury-containing preservative in vaccines caused autism, they, too, were not based on any biological principle. But in any case, those negative studies were useful in being able to reassure parents that their concerns or fears about those vaccines were ill founded and that studies showed that vaccines do not cause autism.One could then argue that these negative studies are of some value, but that does not seem to be true in regard to complementary and alternative medicine. Many studies have shown that megavitamins are not what they are claimed to be. In fact, a number of studies have shown that megavitamins can increase one's risk for heart disease or cancer or shorten a person's life. Studies have shown that chondroitin sulfate and glucosamine do not treat arthritis, or that St. 's wort does not treat depression, or that ginkgo does not improve memory, or that garlic does not lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, yet we are still looking at alternative and complementary medicine, a $34 billion-a-year business. I think few people are aware of those studies, so it hasn't really changed behavior.For these reasons, I think that NCCAM should reevaluate its portfolio. One could argue that just because an alternative medicine does not work better than placebo, that doesn't mean that placebos don't work; or, said another way, that alternative medicines can act as placebos. If NCCAM wants to study the placebo response or the physiologic basis of the placebo response, I think that is of value. But I do think that studies that have bases that, frankly, border on mysticism are not of value. Thank you for your attention.ReferencesOffit PA. Studying complementary and alternative therapies. JAMA. 2012;307:1803-1804. Abstract Medscape Infectious Diseases © 2012 WebMD, LLC

[Guest guest]

Here is a more enlightened view, which doesn't use CAM terminology, from an organization which is an open tent. Seitz, DC Tuality Physicians 730-D SE Oak St Hillsboro, OR 97123 (503)640-3724To: oregondcs From: twogems@...Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 16:49:44 -0700Subject: Which CAM therapies merit study?

Docs:

Interesting but typical medical perspective on CAM therapies by

Offit, M.D. For those of you registered with WebMD, here is the link

to the video:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/763604?src=mp & spon=38

Lyndon McGill, D.C.

EvolvHealth Wellness Advisory Council Member

Salem, Oregon

www.SalemSpineClinic.com

www.EvolvingDaily.com

Which Complementary and Alternative Therapies Merit Study?

A. Offit, MD

Posted: 05/17/2012

Hi. My name is Offit. I am speaking to you today from the Vaccine

Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

I thought I would talk about a viewpoint piece that appeared in

the most recent issue of the Journal of the American Medical

Association.[1] It involved studying

complementary and alternative medicines, specifically focusing on

the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

This center was born as the Office of Alternative Medicine, in

1992, by the influence of 2 Iowa politicians. One was Tom Harkin,

who believed that bee pollen had cured his hay fever. The other

was Berkley Bedell, who believed that cow colostrum had cured his

Lyme disease. Their notion was that alternative medicines, if

studied, would move into the mainstream.

Since the founding in 1992, the National Center for Complementary

and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) has received about $1.6 billion

of federal money to study a variety of things. What they have

studied has been disappointing. They spent hundreds of thousands

of dollars to see whether prayer treated AIDS; to see whether

prayer could promote wound healing after breast reconstruction

surgery; to see whether coffee enemas could treat pancreatic

cancer; to see whether magnets (in mattresses or otherwise) could

improve carpal tunnel syndrome, migraines, or arthritis; in

addition to whether lemon or lavender scents could improve

arthritis. I think the disappointing part of these studies is that

they are not based on any biological principle. In fact, they seem

to hark back to a much more distant time, before we really

understood the pathophysiologic basis of diseases and were able to

direct treatments towards them.

You could argue that negative studies are of some value, even

when they are not based on any sound biological principle. For

example, when Wakefield claimed that the measles, mumps,

and rubella vaccine caused autism, or when there were fears that

thimerosal and ethyl mercury-containing preservative in vaccines

caused autism, they, too, were not based on any biological

principle. But in any case, those negative studies were useful in

being able to reassure parents that their concerns or fears about

those vaccines were ill founded and that studies showed that

vaccines do not cause autism.

One could then argue that these negative studies are of some

value, but that does not seem to be true in regard to

complementary and alternative medicine. Many studies have shown

that megavitamins are not what they are claimed to be. In fact, a

number of studies have shown that megavitamins can increase one's

risk for heart disease or cancer or shorten a person's life.

Studies have shown that chondroitin sulfate and glucosamine do not

treat arthritis, or that St. 's wort does not treat

depression, or that ginkgo does not improve memory, or that garlic

does not lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, yet we are

still looking at alternative and complementary medicine, a $34

billion-a-year business. I think few people are aware of those

studies, so it hasn't really changed behavior.

For these reasons, I think that NCCAM should reevaluate its

portfolio. One could argue that just because an alternative

medicine does not work better than placebo, that doesn't mean that

placebos don't work; or, said another way, that alternative

medicines can act as placebos. If NCCAM wants to study the placebo

response or the physiologic basis of the placebo response, I think

that is of value. But I do think that studies that have bases

that, frankly, border on mysticism are not of value. Thank you for

your attention.

References

Offit PA. Studying complementary and alternative

therapies. JAMA. 2012;307:1803-1804. Abstract

Medscape Infectious Diseases © 2012 WebMD, LLC

1 of 1 File(s)

functional-medicine_005.pdf

[Guest guest]

He's known as " For Profit Offit " for a reason.

;-)

, DC, FACO

>

> Docs:

>

> Interesting but typical medical perspective on CAM therapies by

> Offit, M.D. For those of you registered with WebMD, here is the link to

> the video:

>

> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/763604?src=mp & spon=38

>

> Lyndon McGill, D.C.

> EvolvHealth Wellness Advisory Council Member

> Salem, Oregon

> www.SalemSpineClinic.com

> www.EvolvingDaily.com

>

>

>

> Which Complementary and Alternative Therapies Merit Study?

>

> A. Offit, MD

>

> Posted: 05/17/2012

>

> Hi. My name is Offit. I am speaking to you today from the Vaccine

> Education Center

> <http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/home.html> at the

> Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. I thought I would talk about a

> viewpoint piece that appeared in the most recent issue of the /Journal

> of the American Medical Association/.^[1] It involved studying

> complementary and alternative medicines, specifically focusing on the

> National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. This center

> was born as the Office of Alternative Medicine, in 1992, by the

> influence of 2 Iowa politicians. One was Tom Harkin, who believed that

> bee pollen had cured his hay fever. The other was Berkley Bedell, who

> believed that cow colostrum had cured his Lyme disease. Their notion was

> that alternative medicines, if studied, would move into the mainstream.

>

> Since the founding in 1992, the National Center for Complementary and

> Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) has received about $1.6 billion of federal

> money to study a variety of things. What they have studied has been

> disappointing. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to see

> whether prayer treated AIDS; to see whether prayer could promote wound

> healing after breast reconstruction surgery; to see whether coffee

> enemas could treat pancreatic cancer; to see whether magnets (in

> mattresses or otherwise) could improve carpal tunnel syndrome,

> migraines, or arthritis; in addition to whether lemon or lavender scents

> could improve arthritis. I think the disappointing part of these studies

> is that they are not based on any biological principle. In fact, they

> seem to hark back to a much more distant time, before we really

> understood the pathophysiologic basis of diseases and were able to

> direct treatments towards them.

>

> You could argue that negative studies are of some value, even when they

> are not based on any sound biological principle. For example, when

> Wakefield claimed that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine

> caused autism, or when there were fears that thimerosal and ethyl

> mercury-containing preservative in vaccines caused autism, they, too,

> were not based on any biological principle. But in any case, those

> negative studies were useful in being able to reassure parents that

> their concerns or fears about those vaccines were ill founded and that

> studies showed that vaccines do not cause autism.

>

> One could then argue that these negative studies are of some value, but

> that does not seem to be true in regard to complementary and alternative

> medicine. Many studies have shown that megavitamins are not what they

> are claimed to be. In fact, a number of studies have shown that

> megavitamins can increase one's risk for heart disease or cancer or

> shorten a person's life. Studies have shown that chondroitin sulfate and

> glucosamine do not treat arthritis, or that St. 's wort does not

> treat depression, or that ginkgo does not improve memory, or that garlic

> does not lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, yet we are still

> looking at alternative and complementary medicine, a $34 billion-a-year

> business. I think few people are aware of those studies, so it hasn't

> really changed behavior.

>

> For these reasons, I think that NCCAM should reevaluate its portfolio.

> One could argue that just because an alternative medicine does not work

> better than placebo, that doesn't mean that placebos don't work; or,

> said another way, that alternative medicines can act as placebos. If

> NCCAM wants to study the placebo response or the physiologic basis of

> the placebo response, I think that is of value. But I do think that

> studies that have bases that, frankly, border on mysticism are not of

> value. Thank you for your attention.

>

>

> References

>

> 1. Offit PA. Studying complementary and alternative therapies. JAMA.

> 2012;307:1803-1804. Abstract

> <http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/22550193>

>

> Medscape Infectious Diseases © 2012 WebMD, LLC

>