Study on Glucosamine for Feline Interstitial Cystitis Does not Suggest any Benefit

A recent research study performed in Thailand has been reported in the American Journal of Veterinary Research (AJVR) which addresses the possibility that oral glucosamine might be useful for treating Feline Interstitial Cystitis (FIC).

Panchaphanpong J, Asawakarn T, Pusoonthornthum R. Effects of oral administration of N-acetyl-d-glucosamine on plasma and urine concentrations of glycosaminoglycans in cats with idiopathic cystitis. Am J Vet Res. 2011 Jun;72(6):843-50.

FIC is a poorly understood condition in which cats experience many of the symptoms of a bladder infection, including blood in their urine and straining to urinate, and which can even lead to urinary tract obstruction in males. For years, such cats were assumed to have bacterial urinary tract infections (UTIs) and treated with antibiotics. Since most were given a 7-10 days course of antibiotics and most got better within that period, it was long believed that the treatment was working and was confirmation of the diagnosis of UTI. This is a classic example of how misleading clinical experience and the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy can be. Eventually, controlled scientific research revealed that the condition is usually inflammatory, not infectious, and typically resolves on its own. Antibiotics don’t help, and since they can cause vomiting, diarrhea, loss of appetite, or wounds on the hands of the person trying to give them to a cat, they are actually more likely to do harm than to help these patients.

Because glycosoaminoglycans (GAGs), like glucosamine, are a normal part of the protective lining of the bladder wall, it has been hypothesized that supplementing with GAGs might be useful in preventing or treating this condition. This paper, however, doesn’t provide much support for that hypothesis.

The study was double-blinded and placebo controlled w/ randomization. There were only 19 cats with FIC (7 in the placebo group and 12 in the glucosamine group), and 10 normal cats were used as controls. The authors gave the treatment group glucosamine (and the placebo group an identical placebo) for 28 days. Blood and urine samples were obtained (though not always from every subject) on the first day before treatment and then at 7, 14, 21, 28, and 56 days after the start of the study. Treatment was discontinued at 28 days.

There were no bloodwork abnormalities in any of the normal or FIC cats. The only difference in urine test results was in the presence of blood in the urine. Before treatment, 6/12 (50%) of the treatment group had no blood in their urine, and at the end of treatment 10/12 (83%) cats in the treatment group were without blood in their urine. In the placebo group, 1/7 (14%) were free of blood before treatment and 5/7 (70%) had no blood in the urine at the end of the 28 days. The authors suggest that because a higher percentage of the treatment group were free of blood in the urine at the end, this suggests the treatment reduced this symptom of FIC. However, no statistical analysis was done to determine if the difference between 83% and 70% is significant, which it may well not be in so small a sample. And a much higher percentage of the placebo group had blood in their urine to begin with, so if anything this group seemed to have a greater improvement over the course of the study than the cats receiving glucosamine.\

Another variable measured was the concentration of GAG in the blood and urine. If GAGs are going to be useful as an oral medication, they have to be absorbed and reached therapeutic levels in the tissue where the problem is. In this study, blood levels of GAG did increase significantly in the treatment group at Days 21 and 28. GAG levels were greater in the treatment group than the placebo group at Day 21, but not at Day 28. And the starting GAG levels in the blood were the same for the normal control cats and for those with FIC. So while it seems the oral glucosamine did increase the blood level of GAG somewhat, it is not clear that blood levels are related to the presence of FIC or that the increase was meaningful since it was not consistently present but only seen at one out of four measurement times.

Another variable measured in the study was the level of GAGs in the urine. Urine GAG levels at the start of the study were higher in cats with FIC than in normal cats. The authors suggest this may be the result of GAG leakage from the inflamed bladder wall in cats with FIC. Urine GAG levels in cats treated with glucosamine were significantly higher than that of cats in the placebo group at only one of the four measurement times, Day 14. The authors imply that this might be a sign of the oral glucosamine reaching the bladder, a necessary prerequisite for the glucosamine having any potential medicinal use for this condition. However, as mentioned the difference only existed at one time point. And if it is true that the FIC cats had higher urine GAG levels than the normal cats at the start of the study because this was a symptom of their diseases, then why are higher levels later interpreted as a potentially positive sign rather than as an indication of greater inflammation and leakage from the bladder wall?

This was a well-designed and conducted study which, as so often happens, was interpreted in a more positive way than really justified by the data reported. Overall, it is consistent with previous studies which suggest that oral glucosamine is probably absorbed to some extent, though it may or may not reach physiologically meaningful concentrations in blood or other tissues. However, there is little indication that the supplement had any significant impact on the FIC affected cats. No clear, consistent effect on clinical symptoms or laboratory measures was observed. The study is useful in investigating in a systematic and generally objective way the potential for oral glucosamine as a therapy for FIC, and by and large it does not suggest there is much value in glucosamine as an FIC therapy.

Posted in Herbs and Supplements | 3 Comments

Alternative and Complementary Therapies for Cancer: Recent Studies find Danger and no Benefits

There are different ways to employ alternative medical therapies. Sometimes they are used in place of conventional, scientific medicine. More commonly, they are used along with conventional therapy and simply given the credit for any improvement. However, in either case there is frequently little or no research data to show whether or not such therapies are beneficial or harmful. A couple of recent studies addressing this issue have appeared which found no benefit to so-called integrative use of CAM therapies and significant harm to the replacement of conventional cancer treatment with these alternative approaches.

Han E, Johnson N, Delamelena T, Glissmeyer M, Steinbock K. Alternative therapy used as primary treatment for breast cancer negatively impacts outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;Jan 12 [Epub ahead of print].

The first study looked at 61 patients with treatable breast cancer who either declined or delayed conventional therapy in favor of alternative approaches. The mortality was significantly increased and the success of treatment greatly decreased in these patients. Those who declined conventional therapy altogether did especially poorly.

Judson P, Dickson E, Xiong Y, Peterson J, Geller M, Ghebre R et al. A prospective, randomized trial of complementary/alternative medicine for women with ovarian cancer [Abstracts Presented for the 41st Annual Meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, Annual Meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists]. Gynecol Oncol 2010; 116(S2):S142-S143.

The second study looked at 43 women with ovarian cancer who were treated with chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy with hypnosis, healing touch, and massage. No differences in objective measures nor in quality of life were found between the standard care and the “integrative” care groups.

Obviously, these studies only involved a limited number of patients with particular conditions and particular CAM approaches, so they cannot be viewed as anything like a definitive statement on the value, if any, of alternative therapies alone or in combination with conventional cancer treatment. However, these alternatives are often marketed with confident pronouncements about their value that go well beyond any claims that could be justified by the available evidence. If CAM proponents wish to see their therapies used as replacements for conventional treatment or even as adjuncts to it, the onus is on them to demonstrate the safety and the benefits of such approaches.

These studies clearly do not support the use of these therapies, particularly when substituted for established treatments. Instead they show that there is a great danger in replacing treatments with known risks and benefits with treatments that have not demonstrated their worth, and that we cannot simply assume that even benign therapies like massage will necessarily benefit patients with cancer.

Posted in General | 1 Comment

Salmonella and Other Risks of Raw Pet Diets

Primal Pet Foods, a popular marketer of commercial raw diets for dogs and cats, recently announced a recall of one of its raw cat foods because testing has suggested the diet may be contaminated with the bacteria Salmonella. Such recalls in the pet food industry are typically precautionary, and most of the time no actual harm results for pets or their owners. Nevertheless, since advocates of homemade and raw diets tend to promote such recalls as evidence of the unhealthy nature of conventional commercial pet diets, and to try and equate every recall with the tragic, but unusual, melamine contamination problem of 2007, I feel it is important to point out that raw diet and other pet products touted as “natural” and healthy are also subject to such recalls.

Whether or not this particular diet turns out to be source of disease for pets or their owners is less important than the general health risks posed by raw pet diets. I have discussed these diets at length before (e.g. here and here), and the bottom line is this:

1) The theoretical arguments used to promote them are not sound.

2) There is no evidence for the supposed health benefits claimed for raw diets or for most of the health hazards raw diet advocates claim are associated with conventional pet foods.

3) The risks of raw diets are probably small but certainly greater than those for conventional foods, without any apparent benefits to justify them.

These conclusions are much the same as those in a research review being presented next week at the annual meeting of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine. Dr. Anread Fascetti, a board-certified veterinary internist and nutritionist, reviews the literature concerning raw diets (1), and finds a number of serious concerns.

A. Nutritional Inadequacy:
A number of studies of both commercial and homemade raw diets have found significant nutritional deficiencies or excesses (2, 3). In one study, cats fed a diet based on raw rabbits developed heart muscle disease associated with a deficiency of the amino acid taurine (4).

B. Lack of Health Benefits:
The little research that has been done on raw diets does not support dramatic claims of health benefits. Some research has found subjective differences in coat and stool quality but not in any other factors evaluated (4). One study suggested that periodontal disease was reduced by adding oxtail to the diet, but other studies have found high rates of periodontal disease in wild dogs and feral cats consuming whole prey (5, 6), and no difference in oral health between domestic cats eating commercial diets or mostly whole prey (7).

C. Health Risks:
As I have pointed out before, raw diets are more likely than cooked diets to be contaminated with infectious organisms, including Salmonella. Such organisms have been found in raw diets (1, 8-12) and have been found shed in the feces of pets eating these diets (13), they can be passed from pets to humans (13-16), and they have caused illness in both pets and humans (16-18).

Another recent paper in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, written by Dr. Kate KuKanich (19), specifically addresses the subject of Salmonella contamination in pet foods and treats. Her analysis of the literature shows that uncooked foods and treats are far more likely to be contaminated with Salmonella, and that up to 69% of sled dogs and 61% of racing greyhounds fed raw meat shed this organism in their feces even when they have no diarrhea or other clinical symptoms. This is compared to a rate of shedding of less than 5% up to 15% in studies of other healthy dogs. While Salmonella contamination after cooking has been found in dry diets, the risks for uncooked foods and treats are substantially higher, and Dr. KuKanich concludes, as I would,

Ample evidence exists for the risk of Salmonella contamination in raw food diets; thus, it is advised that pet owners avoid feeding raw food diets to pets.

 

References
1. Fascetti AJ. Raw food diets: A research review. Proceedings, American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine Forum, Denver, CO, June 15-18, 2011.

2. Freeman L., Michel, K., Nutritional analysis of 5 types of “Raw Food Diets.”  JAVMA March, 2001;218(5): 705.

3. Dillitzer, N, Becker, N, Kienzle, E. Frequency and extent of nutritional imbalances in “bone and Raw food” (barf) rations. Proceedings Waltham Interational Nutritional Sciences Symposium, Cambridge, UK, September 16-18, 2010. p. 44.

4. Glasgow AG, et. al. Role of Diet in the Health of the Feline Intestinal Tract And in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Center for Companion Animal Health, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California at Davis. Accessed June 5, 2011 at http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/ccah/local-assets/pdfs/Role_of_diet_feline%20health_Glasgow.pdf

5. Steenkamp G, Gorrel C. Oral and dental conditions in adult African wild dog skulls: a preliminary report. Journal of  Veterinary Dentistry. 1999 Jun;16(2):65-8.

6. Verstraete FJ, van Aarde RJ, Nieuwoudt BA, Mauer E, Kass PH. The dental pathology of feral cats on Marion Island, part II: periodontitis, external odontoclastic resorption lesions and mandibular thickening. Journal of Comparative Pathology. 1996 Oct;115(3):283-97.

7. Clarke DE, Cameron A. Relationship between diet, dental calculus and periodontal disease in domestic and feral cats in Australia. Australian Veterinary Journal. 1998 Oct;76(10):690-3.

8. Chengappa MM, Staats J, Oberst RD, Gabbert NH, McVey S. Prevalence of Salmonella in raw meat used in diets of racing greyhounds. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigations. 1993 Jul;5(3):372-7.

9. Joffe DJ, Schlesinger DP. Preliminary assessment of the risk of Salmonella infection in dogs fed raw chicken diets. Canadian Veterinary Journal. 2002 Jun;43(6):441-2.

10. Weese JS, Rousseau J, Arroyo L. Bacteriological evaluation of commercial canine and feline raw diets. Canadian Veterinary Journal. 2005 Jun;46(6):513-6.

11. Morley PS, Strohmeyer RA, Tankson JD, Hyatt DR, Dargatz DA, Fedorka-Cray PJ. Evaluation of the association between feeding raw meat and Salmonella enterica infections at a Greyhound breeding facility. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2006 May 15;228(10):1524-32.

12. Leonard EK, Pearl DL, Finley RL, Janecko N, Peregrine AS, Reid-Smith RJ, Weese JS. Evaluation of pet-related management factors and the risk of Salmonella spp. carriage in pet dogs from volunteer households in Ontario (2005-2006). Zoonoses Public Health. 2011 Mar;58(2):140-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2009.01320.x.

13. Finley, R. et al. The risk of Salmonella shedding by dogs fed Salmonella-contaminated commercial raw food diets. Canadian Veterinary Journal. 2007;8:69-75.

14. Gutman LT, Ottesen EA, Quan TJ, Noce PS, Katz SL. An inter-familial outbreak of Yersinia enterocolitica enteritis. New England Journal of Medicine. 1973 Jun 28;288(26):1372-7.

15. Morse EV, Duncan MA, Estep DA, Riggs WA, Blackburn BO. Canine salmonellosis: A review and report of dog to child transmission of Salmonella enteritidis. American Journal of Public Health. 1976 Jan;66(1):82-4.

16. CDC. Outbreaks of multidrug-resistant Salmonella Typhimurium associated with veterinary facilities—Idaho, Minnesota, and Washington, 1999. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2001;50:701–704.

17. Canadian Communicable Disease Report. Human health risk from exposure to natural dog treats. 200(26).41. Acessed June 5, 2011 at http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071217102424/http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/00vol26/dr2606ea.html

18. Finley R, Reid-Smith R, Weese JS. Human health implications of Salmonella-contaminated natural pet treats and raw pet food. Clin Infect Dis. 2006 Mar 1;42(5):686-91. Epub 2006 Jan 20.

19. KuKanich KS. Update on Salmonella spp contamination of pet food, treats, and nutritional products and safe feeding recommendations. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 2011 Jun;238(11):1430-1434.

Posted in Nutrition | 11 Comments

From The Daily Mash: Made-up Medicine Works on Made-up Illnesses

A spot of British humour with your tea? Here are few excerpts from the article

Made-up medicine works on made-up illnesses

ACUPUNCTURE has been shown to be extremely effective amongst people who have nothing wrong with them.

Experts stressed that acupuncture, like murder and lying, has existed for thousands of years and works on the fundamental Chinese principle that if it hurts it must be working.

Professor Henry Brubaker, of the Institute for Studies, said: “To truly assess the efficacy of acupuncture a widespread double-blind test needs to be conducted over a series of years but to be honest it’s the equivalent of mapping the DNA of pixies or conducting a geological study of Narnia.”

Posted in Humor | 2 Comments

Evaluation of the Chinese Herbal Remedies San Ren Tang, Wei Lin Tang, and Alisma for Feline Urinary Tract Disease

Though herbal remedies often have an aura of being somehow fundamentally different from drugs used as medicines, they are really just collections of chemical compounds. As such, they ought to be evaluated just as conventional pharmaceuticals are: identification and isolation of active compounds, in vitro experiments establishing potential beneficial and harmful effects, in vivo studies looking at absorption, metabolism, and safety, and finally well-controlled clinical trials escalating in size and complexity to determine safety and effectiveness in the target species and disease conditions. There is no reason such remedies cannot be effective therapies, but there is also no reason to assume they are safe or effective without following these steps. For a variety of practical and philosophical reasons, unfortunately, many potentially useful herbal products are not properly tested, and their use is based on much less reliable foundations, such as folk tradition and personal experience.

Therefore, I always appreciate it when I see important and necessary, though often not glamorous, preclinical research on such remedies. This kind of research can be invaluable in guiding us towards or away from specific remedies, though it is only one piece of the puzzle and cannot definitively confirm or refute the potential usefulness of specific herbal products. An abstract being presented at the upcoming American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine Forum presents the data from just such a laboratory study.

M. Daniels; J.W. Bartges; D.M. Raditic; C.A. Kirk; A. Callens; S. Marsden; G. Galyon
Evaluation of 3 Herbal Compounds Used for Management of Lower Urinary Tract Disease in Cats

The study evaluated three herbal products to see if they increased urine volume or changed the chemical constitution of the urine in was believed to reduce the risk of Feline Lower Urinary Tract Disease (FLUTD), a common and uncomfortable condition in cats. 6 healthy cats were used in the study, and they were randomly assigned to be given each of three products or a placebo in turn: San Ren Tang, Wei Ling Tang, and Alisma. A 24-hour urine sample was collected and analyzed after 2 weeks of treatment with each product for each cat. None of the products showed a significant difference from the placebo in any variable measured.

I am not familiar with the basis on which these products are recommended for FLUTD, so I cannot evaluate the plausibility of the underlying theory. However, the products are herbal remedies within the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) approach, and I have already discussed elsewhere the principles of TCM and why they are fundamentally inconsistent with a scientific approach to medicine. Individual herbal products undoubtedly have active chemical compounds, both from the plant ingredients and often deliberate or accidental contaminants, but without proper scientific evaluation there is no valid way to designate specific products as treatments for specific conditions or to evaluate their safety and efficacy.

This study was not intended, of course, to definitively answer the question of whether these herbal preparations are safe or beneficial for cats with FLUTD. The particular urine characteristics measured are known to play a role in the risk of developing FLUTD symptoms, but there are other risk factors, and the precise steps leading to the condition in individual cats are not clearly understood. So these products could conceivably be beneficial even if they do not influence the variables looked at in this study. However, given the apparent lack of a sound scientific rationale for using them, and the lack of a plausible mechanism or established preclinical effects, such remedies cannot be routinely recommended. And given the limited resources available for research into new veterinary therapies, it seems it would be most efficient to focus those resources on therapies that seem promising on the basis of established scientific knowledge, rather than the far less reliable criteria of traditional use. Studies on herbal remedies should, therefore, focus on developing this important preclinical knowledge before proceeding with clinical trials.

Posted in Herbs and Supplements | 16 Comments

Azodyl for Kidney Failure in Cats: An Update on the Evidence

In a recent article about pet supplements for the Science-Based Medicine Blog, I reviewed the dietary supplement Azodyl, marketed for kidney failure in dogs and cats. At the time, the evidence I was able to find was extremely limited, poorly controlled, and subject to a high risk of bias due to association of the research with the company marketing the products. My conclusion was that the theory behind the product was weakly plausible and the evidence insufficient to justify a firm conclusion about efficacy.

An abstract is being presented at the upcoming American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine Forum which reports the results of a controlled study on the use of this product in 10 cats with  chronic kidney disease.

M. Rishniw; S. Wynn
Azodyl Fails to Reduce Azotemia in Cats with Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) When Sprinkled Onto Food 

The study examined whether there was any difference between commonly measured blood markers of kidney disease, blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine, in cats given Azodyl and cats given a placebo. The Azodyl was sprinkled on the food since this is commonly how the product is used (making cats take capsules is often difficult). The study was randomized, double blinded, and placebo controlled. The criteria for confirming a positive effect were quite generous, however no difference was found between cats given Azodyl and cats given the palcebo.

The authors concluded:

Based on these results, Azodyl, applied by sprinkling onto food fails to reduce [BUN and creatinin] in cats with [chronic kidney disease]. Whether intact capsule administration reduces reduces azotemia in cats with [chronic kidney disease] remains unknown.

Though generally well-designed, this study was small, and of course single studies are almost never sufficient to provide the final word on a particular therapy. The issue of potential bias for or against a hypothesis is always hard to evaluate objectively, but I am unaware of any direct funding or other involvement of the company in this study. I do know that one of the authors, Dr. Susan Wynn, is a prominent researcher and advocate in the area of herbal and some other alternative therapies, so she certainly would not be expected to have a bias against the product. And negative findings in clinical research are inherently more reliable than positive findings because our studies and our psychology are designed to confirm our beliefs rather than refute them. So while the case is by no means closed, the balance of the very limited evidence is currently against any significant clinical value for this product.

Posted in Herbs and Supplements | 135 Comments

Veterinary Homotoxicology

What Is It?
Proponents of homotoxicology (also sometimes known as “complex homeopathy”) present it as an advancement or improvement in homeopathy, one that is more scientific and compatible with conventional medicine than classical homeopathy. It can more accurately be seen as a faction or sect that has split off from mainstream homeopathy with quite different, but equally unscientific, theories about the cause and treatment of disease.

Like classical homeopathy, made up by Samuel Hahnemann in the 19th century, homotoxicology was largely invented by one man, a German homeopath named Hans-Heinrich Reckeweg. Just as Hahnemann created many of the founding principles of homeopathy without regard to contemporary or modern scientific principles, so Reckeweg apparently invented the fundamental principles of homotoxicology. These principles continue to be assumed true by practitioners of homotoxicology, with all subsequent elaboration of the theoretical and practical aspects of the approached being based on these unproven, and implausible ideas.

The core concept of homotoxicology is the “discovery” of yet another One True Cause of all illness. Reckeweg decided that all illness is a manifestation of the body’s struggle to eliminate toxins. As he put it,

According to homotoxicology, all of those processes, syndromes, and manifestations, which we designate as disease, are the expression thereof that the body is combating poisons and that it wants to neutralize and excrete these poisons. The body either wins or loses the fight thereby. Those processes, which we designate as disease, are always biological, that is natural teleological processes, which serve [as] poison defense and detoxification.

Reckeweg went on to describe an elaborate model of stages of detoxification, each with characteristic symptoms, and an encyclopedic list of treatments for particular symptoms dictated by this model.

This is a variation of a popular notion among purveyors of alternative medicine, that disease can be attributed largely to “toxins” and that “detoxification” is the goal of healthcare. The notion is appealing because our innate emotional mechanism of disgust prime us to view things in our environment with certain physical characteristics (strong smells in particular) and things associated with illness, as potentially harmful. To this we add the notion of contagion, a category of sympathetic magic, which suggests that such things can harm us even when distanced from their source. These intuitive concepts make us susceptible to the idea that the symptoms we have and diseases we experience are the result of exposure to contagious, toxic substances. “Miasmas,” “bad air,” and many other vague sources of contagion have been posited as the cause of illness in periods or cultures without a detailed scientific understanding of the mechanisms of common illnesses.

At first glance, these ideas make some sense. There are, of course, infectious and toxic substances in nature which can make us ill. And prior to the development of a scientific understanding of the mechanisms of infection and poisoning, the general tendency to avoid anything which triggered our disgust mechanisms or which was associated with illness in some way was a reasonable precaution. However, this logical foundation cannot support the elaborate and fanciful structures built on it by those who promote the general principles of “toxins” as the cause of all disease. The fact that toxins and infectious organisms cause some disease does not logically mean that they cause all disease, nor does it lend any legitimacy to the proposed methods of “detoxification” often promoted. The kind of vague and mythologized notion of “toxins” behind homotoxicology and other “detoxifying” therapies has no legitimate scientific basis.

The model and practices of homotoxicology overall are a prime example of a pseudoscience, and the marketing of this approach includes many warning signs associated with pseudoscientific therapies. Abundant scientific terminology is employed, often with no clear, specific meaning or recognizable association with how such terminology is used by conventional science. All kinds of things are labeled as toxins, including infectious organisms, true toxic chemicals, substances assumed but not proven to be harmful, and the normal products of metabolism. No rigorous effort is made to demonstrate the assumed relationship between specific substances, the body’s mechanisms for eliminating them, and the course of particular diseases. All of this is simply accepted based on Reckweg’s initial insight and the personal experience of subsequent practitioners of homotoxicology.

Likewise, the choice of remedies for the presumed consequences of the body’s struggle to eliminate toxins is not based on any rational, scientific foundation. While practitioners often accept conventional diagnoses and monitor their patients with the usual tests, the scientific understanding of the conditions treated is not involved in selecting or applying therapy. The remedies used are mostly homeopathic, though they are sometimes made and applied in ways contrary to the principles and standards of classical homeopathy. Remedies are combined rather than given singly, they are often given by injection rather than orally, and they are often less extensively diluted than many homeopathic products.

The instructional materials produced by the company Reckweg founded, Heel Inc., explain in exhaustive detail the use of particular remedies for many conditions. However,  the links between the conditions as defined in conventional medicine, the theories invented by Reckweg, and the particular products Heel makes are not made in these materials or elsewhere. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors, including extensive use of technical scientific language and references to in vitro research and basic biology and chemistry not directly related to the methods or claims of homotoxicology. But no clear, direct, consistent, or convincing evidence is provided to support the use of particular remedies for particular medical conditions, only a few in vitro studies showing some possible effects of some preparations.

Because some remedies used in homotoxicology are not ultradilute homeopathic preparations, it is possible that they contain biologically active compounds. These products may be a bit more like herbal remedies than true homeopathic remedies. However, as with herbal remedies, the presence of potentially active chemical compounds doesn’t by itself indicate safety or effectiveness. A plausible mechanism, in vitro and in vivo evidence of bioavailability and measurable effects, evidence concerning side effects, clinical trial evidence of safety and efficacy, and reliable standards for quality control are all necessary to demonstrate a treatment is beneficial and appropriate for general use.  

Does It Work?
There is little reliable published research in humans on the clinical application of homotoxicology. A systematic review of the scientific literature found 7 trials with methodologically sound design, of which 6 reported positive results. No two trials looked at the same condition, so there was no replication to demonstrate a consistent, repeatable benefit. There was also a considerable risk of bias which was not controlled for in these studies. Almost half included authors who worked for the company making the remedies studied, and others were funded by this company or published in the Journal of Biomedical Therapy, a publication specifically created by the company to promote its approach and products. Often these potential sources of bias were not disclosed by the authors of the studies.

It is well-established that industry-funded research is more likely to show  positive results than independently funded studies regardless of the honest intentions of investigators. It is also clear that negative results are less likely to be published than positive results and industry created journals are untrustworthy marketing organs, not real scientific journals. Such sources of bias are loudly and justly identified when the products of the conventional pharmaceutical industry are at issue. Yet proponents of alternative medicine often seem willing to overlook them when discussing the products of dietary supplement, herbal remedy, or homeopathic remedy manufacturers. In the absence of the strict government oversight that is applied to the pharmaceutical trials, the limited and likely biased evidence produced by proponents and manufacturers of homotoxicology products is simply not reliable.

It is also worth noting that Heel Inc. (under a variety of names) has repeatedly been sanctioned by the Food and Drug Administration for violating the laws and regulations governing the marketing of homeopathic medications. From 1984 through 2005, the FDA has issued multiple warning letters and attempted to ban importation of Heel products due to illegal marketing claims. This sort of behavior further undermines the validity of the limited and already questionable research and marketing information this company supplies. The unfortunate reality is that the manufacturer of these remedies is the main source of information about the safety and efficacy of their own products, which is a far worse example of the fox guarding the henhouse than even the case of the conventional pharmaceutical industry.

Few veterinary studies of homotoxicology methods or remedies have been published. Unsurprisingly, uncontrolled case reports from proponents claim significant benefits. A published study of one Heel Inc. product for arthritis in dogs also claimed a positive result, but close analysis of the study identifies a number of methodological problems and questionable manipulations of the data, though at least there did not appear to be a significant issue of industry influence in this study as in most of the research in humans.

Overall, there is insufficient clinical trial data to clearly establish the effectiveness of homotoxicology treatments for any particular condition. This does not, of course, prove such treatments are not effective, but in consideration of the implausible theories, lack of cogent preclinical evidence, and abundant evidence against effectiveness for classical homeopathic remedies, this lack of evidence does call for significant skepticism. The existing evidence clearly does not justify the confident claims of benefit made by advocates of this approach.

Is It Safe?
I am not aware of any reports of direct harm from homotoxicology treatment. For hose remedies which are ultradilute and contain no active ingredients, as is the case for classical homeopathic remedies, there is clearly no risk of direct injury. Since some products used in complex homeopathy may contain active compounds, however, there may some risk of adverse effects, drug interactions, and allergic reactions.

The absence of any evidence of harm is not really a positive sign in one sense, since it is almost certainly evidence of the absence of any real effect. Side effects don’t occur because “drugs” are bad but because any treatment that has a measurable effect on one part of a complex living system will certainly have other, unintended effects on other parts of that system. If there are no possible risks, there can be no possible benefits.  The key to evaluating the safety of a medical therapy is to balance risks and benefits, and though the risk of direct harm is probably little to none for these products, there is also little evidence of any benefit.

Of course, there is certainly risk of indirect harm if homotoxicology is used in lieu of established medical treatments. Many people have been harmed in this way by classical homeopathy. It appears that Heel Inc. and many practitioners of homotoxicology do not recommend their treatments as replacements for conventional therapy, but as adjuncts or as treatment for conditions in which conventional therapy has not been successful. Though it is not at all clear that such uses add any benefit, it seems unlikely that they do any harm.

Bottom Line
The theoretical foundation of homotoxicology, that all disease is an expression of the body’s fight against toxins, is not scientifically valid. The remedies used are predominantly homeopathic, and while the ultradilute ingredients are highly unlikely to have any biological effects, there may be active chemical compounds in the less dilute preparations. There is no consistent, reliable preclinical research validating the potential effectiveness of most remedies used in this approach, though isolated studies show some in vitro effects for some preparations. The limited clinical research in humans is mostly associated with a major marketer of homotoxicology remedies and so is at high risk of bias. The even more limited veterinary research is weak and unconvincing. Additional clinical research does not seem justified until the validity of the implausible theoretical foundations of homotoxicology is established through preclinical study. There does not seem to be a significant risk of harm from homotoxicology treatment so long as it is not used in lieu of established therapies.

Posted in General, Homeopathy | 3 Comments

Sleights of Mind: What the Neuroscience of Magic Reveals about our Everyday Deceptions

The first step in accepting the need for skepticism and a systematic, scientific approach to evaluating medical therapies is understanding the limitations of our perceptions and judgments. Human beings all share innate and inescapable blind spots, both sensory and cognitive, that leave us vulnerable to misconceptions. And unfortunately, our sense of certainty about what we know is not a reliable guide to whether we are actually correct in our beliefs.

So I have a fascination for neuroscience in general, and especially the study of how our brains generate our perceptions, beliefs, and misconceptions. I was recently given a brilliant book on this subject which I thought might be of interest to some readers even though it is not specifically about the subject of medicine. Sleights of Mind: What the Neuroscience of Magic Reveals about our Everyday Deceptions by Stephen Macknik and Susana Martinez-Conde.

The authors are neuroscientists who specialize in the way the brain handles vision. As experts on visual processing, they are especially familiar with the ways in which our visual sense can misrepresent the world, and can be fooled by skilled manipulators of perceptions such as magicians. Both authors are founding board members of the Neural Correlate Society, which hosts the annual Best Illusion of the Year contest.

However, in Sleights of Mind, the authors go well beyond the subject of optical illusions. They illustrate, through the performance art of magic, how we can be fooled by others and, most often, how we fool ourselves, due to a variety of neural mechanisms involving all the sense as well as “higher” functions such cognition, memory, expectation, and the illusion of free will.

Through examples and demonstrations by world-class magicians, Drs. Macknik and Martinez-Conde show us how consistently and dramatically we can be mislead even when we are warned in advance that a magician intends to fool us. And while they only occasionally refer specifically to how these sensory and cognitive blind spots lead us to false beliefs about healthcare, the applicability to medicine is quite clear. We are often wrong when we subjectively or informally evaluate a medical therapy because of the same blind spots that lead us to be easily fooled by magicians and con artists. And while not perfect, carefully controlled clinical research is far less susceptible to such errors and thus a more reliable foundation for judgments about the causes of disease and our treatment interventions.

The authors include many of the illustrations of the blind spots they discussion on their web site. From simple visual illusions to seemingly impossible failures of perception (such as the failure to notice clowns and people in gorilla suits standing right in front of you when your attention has been effectively directed elsewhere), these demonstrations should give us all cause for a healthy skepticism about our own judgment and beliefs. And the best part is that the process of seeing our weaknesses exposed is still entertaining and fun! I highly recommend Sleights of Mind not only because, as a skeptic, I think “it’s good for you” but also because it’s fun.

Posted in Book Reviews | 4 Comments

Traditional Chinese Veterinary Medicine

What Is It?
Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is marketed as a set of theories and practices developed over centuries in China. In reality, it is a label applied to a varied and inconsistent set of practices drawn from a variety of competing traditions, as well as many modern innovations. The term “traditional” is a misnomer for the companion animal applications  of TCM in particular, since historically most TCM concepts and techniques were not applied to pets. The more abstract theories were only held to apply to humans, and the pragmatic use of herbs and other remedies were mostly reserved for agricultural and working animals.The application of theories and practices under the label of TCM to pets is quite recent. The primary methods of treatment in TCM include acupuncture, herbal remedies, a manipulative therapy called tui-na, and alterations in diet.

Though much historical Chinese folk medicine was pragmatic (applying various treatments to symptoms by trial-and-error) TCM as it is packaged today in the West includes a number of theoretical concepts that are variants of Daoist metaphysics and folk cosmology. The fundamental nature of the universe and everything in it is conceived as a condition of balance between opposing aspects of existence known as Yin and Yang. Cold and heat, dark and light, old and young, and so on are seen as examples of this balance between opposites, and all diseases are believed to arise from a disharmony or loss of balance between Yin and Yang. Infectious organisms, toxins, trauma, and other causes of illness recognized by scientific medicine are not considered as true causes in the TCM paradigm, but as manifestations of disharmony. According to Huisheng Xie, the leading figure in veterinary TCM in the United States, “no disease occurs if Yin and Yang maintain a relative balance.”

Yin and Yang are also identified with particular temperaments, organs of the body, seasons, and other features of living organisms and the environment, and this is taken to illustrate the centrality of these concepts and the balance between them to all features of the universe. This notion of balance between forces represented by the five elements (earth, air, fire, water, and wood) or bodily fluids  bears a strong resemblance to the humorism of ancient Greece and Rome, India, and many other cultures. Humorism, practiced in the West until the twentieth century, identified imbalance in humors (blood/air, yellow bile/fire, black bile/earth, and phlegm/water) as the cause of all disease and associated these humors with pairs of opposites such as heat and cold, winter and summer, and so on. Practitioners of humorism attempted to maintain and restore health by restoring balance among the humors, much as TCM practitioners attempt to rebalance Yin and Yang. This was accomplished through bloodletting, herbal remedies, cauterization, and many other practices common to historical and contemporary TCM. This humorist model and the associated practices were abandoned in the West with the advent of modern scientific medicine.

The concept of Yin and Yang is applied to health through an intricate system that varies significantly between individual doctors who employ TCM. In general, practitioners evaluate the appearance of the tongue, the pulse, and a host of other characteristics of individual patients to categorize the problem in terms of excess or deficiency of Yin and Yang. Individual treatments are assigned as promoting or reducing Yin and Yang, so the remedies are chosen based on the categorization of the problem. Egg and banana, for example, are cooling foods, while garlic and ginger are warming foods.  Herbs, acupuncture points, and other treatments are assigned in the same way by tradition, taste, or other criteria.

The names of organs are used in categorizing a disorder according to the TCM system, but it is important to note that this is a metaphorical use of these names, associating certain functions and Yin or Yang with certain organs, somewhat like the metaphorical use of the heart as a symbol for strong emotions (as in “He followed his heart”) and the association of bile with bitter or hostile temperament (as in “You’ve got a lot of gall!”). These names do not imply the anatomical or physiological relationships understood in scientific medicine. This makes it possible, for example, to adjust the Gall Bladder function in a species like the horse, which doesn’t actually have a gall bladder.

A couple of case examples from Dr. Xie’s text will illustrate the general thought process of TCVM.

1. Signalment: Seven year old, female spayed Labrador Retriever

Primary Complaint: Separation Anxiety

History ad Physical Findings: From a western perspective, the dog has all the signs of separation anxiety. Acupuncture treatment did not help much. She has been on the herbal formula Long Dan Xie Gan Wan for signs of Liver Stagnation.

Her tongue is slightly red and dry and her gums are tacky. Her eyes are red. Her pulses are thready and fast.

Assessment: This is a Yin Deficiency Pattern (Deficient Heat), specifically a Heart Yin Deficiency pattern. The Yin Deficiency can be determined from the red, dry tongue (Heat signs) and the thready and fast pulse. The association with the Heart is based on the major complaint of separation anxiety because this is due to a Shen (Spirit or Mind) disturbance. Of the five Yin organs, the Heart is the one that houses the Shen. Separation anxiety and other behavior problems are mostly related to the Heart. The treatment strategy is to balance Yin and Yang by enhancing Yin. The acupuncture points An Shen, HT-7, Da Feng Men, and KID-3 as well as the herbal formula Shen Calmer (Modified Tian Wan Bu Xin Dan) are recommended for this case.

 2. Signalment: A thirteen year old female spayed American Eskimo dog.

Problem List:
a. Cushing’s disease which has been treated with Mitotane for the past four years.

b. Seizures which began last month and clustered about once a week.

c. Hypothyroidism

d. Generalized stiffness with weak hind end. There is no limping, but the dog’s gait is very stiff. The dog takes three to four steps then huffs and puffs and lies down.

e. Generalized lethargy, weakness, lack of energy.

Physical Findings: Pulse is thin and fast; Ravenous appetite and thirst; Bilateral cataracts; Deafness; Panting Constantly; Poor teeth and gums; Rose colored thin ocular discharge; Stool dark brown and foul smelling; Chronic urinary incontinence, all day, all the time; Draining pressure sore on left hip; Pot-bellied with muscle wasting; Tongue is pink with thin coating

Assessment: This can be considered a Deficient Heat (Yin Deficiency) condition, with a Qi Deficiency and Internal Wind. The old age, weakness, urinary incontinence and lethargy indicate a Qi Deficiency. The fast pulse, thirst, ravenous appetite, constant panting and foul smelling stool can indicate Heat. Seizures are caused by Internal Wind.

The treatment strategy is to use acupuncture to balance Yin and Yang by enhancing Yin and clearing the Wind. In addition, acupuncture can be used for the stiffnedd while using Chinese Herbal medicine for the internal organ problems. Acupuncture points such as GB-20, LIV-3 and GV-20 may be beneficial for the seizures (Wind). The points KID-3 and SP-6 may be beneficial for Yin. Two herbal formulas may be beneficial: Tian Ma Gou Teng Yin for Internal Wind and Suo Quan Wan for incontinence and Kidney Qi Deficiency.

Clearly, TCM has an intricate theory and methodology. One can undertake years of training and study in this system, and it is possible to obtain advanced degrees, even PhDs in the subject. This can create the impression that the system must be rational or else why would it be so complex and so academic. As I’ve discussed many times before, however, the strength of adherents’ faith in and idea, the number of adherents, or the length of time the idea has been around are not reliable indicators of whether the idea is true. The theories and practices of humorism dominated Western medicine from the time of Ancient Greece into the twentieth century, yet they were mistaken and ineffective. And the appearance of scientific or academic legitimacy conveyed by Tooth Fairy Science and Quackademic Medicine is equally unreliable. Any idea, regardless of its source, must stand or fall on the merits of reliable, objective evidence. And in reality, TCM does not have the lengthy pedigree as a unified and coherent system its proponents claim anyway. And as I’ve discussed in previous articles, it isn’t even all that popular in China.

Does It Work?
So is there such evidence to support the theories and practices of TCM? Well, the theoretical foundations claimed as the basis for TCM involve undetectable energies and spiritual forces, so they amount to a religious belief system more than a model of the functioning of living organisms. This, of course, cannot be tested by any scientific means and so must either be believed on the basis of faith and personal intuition or experience or rejected on the same basis.

These theories have no consistent relationship to the scientific understandings of anatomy, physiology, or other factors in health and disease. Contrary to popular misconceptions, TCM diagnoses and treatment guidelines are not simply a different set of metaphors for describing the same things scientific medicine talks about. Acupuncture points, for example, do not consistently correspond to detectable anatomical features. And as already pointed out, the use of organ names in TCM is purely metaphorical. So the TCM system of understanding health and disease is entirely separate from the scientific system and cannot be integrated with it, whether or not scientific and TCM treatments are used together.

Much of TCM theory and practice cannot be tested scientifically, but some interventions can. Of course, this raises the theoretical issue of whether or not they should be. Since the way medical problems are categorized and interventions are assigned is based on a metaphysical ideology not compatible with scientific explanations of the world, there is no underlying biologic plausibility to these processes. The only reason to consider investigating them seriously is the belief of those who practice and receive them and, which is a deeply unreliable indicator of the validity of ideas generally. Still, on a pragmatic level any method that is sufficiently popular is likely to draw additional adherents on the basis of testimonials alone, particularly with the added  allure of Orientalism TCM has. Therefore it is worthwhile to examine at least some of the claims made for such an approach in an objective scientific way and see if there are any indications of real effects despite the lack of a plausible theoretical foundation and the largely manufactured history claimed for TCM.

Because the TCM system is complex and involves multiple modes of treatment, each of these specific practices must be tested independently. It makes no more sense to ask “Does TCM work?” than it does to ask “Do drugs work?” Penicillin works for certain kinds of bacterial infections, but not for cancer, depression, or a broken toe. Similarly, acupuncture may have detectable effects for some conditions and not for others. Scientific medical research is not about validating or invalidating an entire philosophy or world view, but about identifying the effects of specific interventions on specific problems under specific conditions. If the argument is made that TCM fundamentally cannot be examined in this way, then it must be considered a belief system or faith healing practice, not a branch of medicine, and it should be practiced or dismissed on the basis of personal faith like any other religion. If, however, TCM is to be taken seriously as a medical approach, it must be pass or fail the same tests of legitimacy as any other healthcare approach.

I will look at each of the major branches of TCM treatment separately to discuss the scientific evidence concerning their effects.

1. Acupuncture:
This is probably the most thoroughly studied and understood of the TCM interventions, and I have written about it extensively. In brief, the evidence in humans shows some mild beneficial effects for subjective symptoms such as pain, nausea, depression, and so on. These effects appear to be largely psychological as they can be elicited by needling practices that are “incorrect” according to any of the various semi-official lists of points and methods (or even by non-penetrating needles or poking patients with toothpicks), and they follow the usual patterns of placebo effects (stronger if presented confidently rather than hesitantly, not consistently detectable through blinded, objective measurement variables, etc). It does not appear that the actual physical manifestations or overall course of any disease is significantly altered by acupuncture, but the psychological benefits of the treatment ritual may be sufficiently beneficial for some patients to be worthwhile.

There is little research on the clinical benefits of acupuncture in companion animals, and no replicated, high-quality studies. There is as yet no reason to believe the results of such research would be different from those seen in humans, but the case has not yet been conclusively made. In any case, the confident claims of benefit almost universally made by practitioners of acupuncture are certainly not justified by scientific evidence.

For more information, see my previous posts concerning acupuncture, the Science-Based Medicine acupuncture section, and the excellent summaries in Snake Oil Science by R. Barker Bausell and Trick or Treatment: The undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine by Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh.

2. Herbal Remedies:
Like herbal medicine in general, this is a complex area in which there is as yet little reliable data. Herbal remedies undoubtedly contain pharmacologically active compounds, so there is reason to believe they could have clinical effects. TCM remedies in particular are often mixtures of multiple plant and animal products, as well as contaminates and often conventional pharmaceuticals, so the pharmacology of these mixtures is complex. Since particular remedies have been assigned by tradition and personal experience to influence Yin and Yang, and since the TCM theories by which they are selected have no relationship to the causes of disease as understood by scientific medicine, there is no scientifically plausible reason to believe these remedies, whatever chemicals they contain, should be safe or effective for particular medical conditions. We have, as usual, only anecdote and tradition to support the use of these products.

A recent article provides an example specific to TCM. Certain fungi that parasitize  insects have been used in TCM practice, as part of the remedy Dong Chong Xia Cao, believed to tonify Yang and promote youth and vitality. Like most ethnobotany traditions, this fungus was used for a great variety of unrelated conditions. It turns out to contain a compound which suppresses inflammation and immune function (despite the inevitable claims that the remedy “enhances” the immune system) and has a variety of other effects in vitro and in lab animals experiments. These functions make this compound potentially useful in the treatment of autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, once extracted from the original fungus and purified. However, the original substance has unacceptable toxic side effects, so it had to be modified to make it a safe and useful medicine.

This example illustrates quite nicely how the process of identifying and making use of potentially medicinal compounds in plants and other natural sources differs from the haphazard traditional use of herbal products. Advocates of herbal medicine are correct when they claim that many medicines come from plants. What they ignore or fail to mention is that these medicines are almost always safer and more effective once they have been isolated from the chemical soup of whole plant products, tested according to a thorough understanding of the relevant physiology and disease mechanisms, and often modified to be safer and more effective than the original compounds. And these plant-derived medicines frequently turn out to be useful in ways that bear little to no relationship to the traditional uses of the plants themselves.

There have been many studies of Chinese herbal preparations, including in vitro, lab animal studies, and clinical trials. Many of these are problematic in that they are small, of poor methodological quality, and often published in alternative medicine journals and Chinese medical journals, which very rarely publish any negative studies, suggesting a severe publication bias. And from a theoretical point of view, studies of individual Chinese herbal remedies for medical conditions defined in standard scientific terms make little sense. From a scientific point of view, there is no reason to think that plant products selected on the basis of undetectable energies and other mystical concepts should be effective. And from the point of view of TCM, using individual remedies utilized to treat disease as defined by conventional science makes no sense because the appropriate treatment should be comprehensive and individualized diagnosis and management of the patient according to the TCM system.

Nevertheless, some attempts to study these herbal preparations in this hybrid way have been made. Though positive results are occasionally reported, there is no repeatable, high-quality evidence to support the use of any particular remedy for any specific condition, and overall the evidence is sparse, of poor quality, and not encouraging.

Given that there are thousands of plant and animal products that have been used in TCM for innumerable purposes, it would be astounding if a few did not turn out to have some positive effects consistent with their traditional use. It is far more likely, given the existing data and the experience with investigations of other herbal medicine traditions, that most traditional uses will not be validated and that the beneficial compounds in the original materials will only prove beneficial once isolated, purified, modified, and tested according to conventional scientific practices, as with the example of Dong Chong Xia Cao already discussed.

A number of Cochrane Reviews of Chinese Herbal Medicines are available, and they generally report the quality and quantity of the evidence for most indications to be insufficient to justify a recommendation. A systematic review of all individualized herbal medicine studies, including those utilizing TCM, found, “There is a sparsity[sic] of evidence regarding the effectiveness of individualised[sic] herbal medicine and no convincing evidence to support the use of individualised[sic] herbal medicine in any indication.” More research seems appropriate, but not based solely on traditional uses of combination products selected on the basis of metaphysical criteria. As with any pharmacologically active preparation, thee herbs should be studied by first identifying potential active compounds, examining their chemical and biological properties in pre-clinical laboratory testing, verifying their safety, and only then proceeding with clinical trials for those that seem promising.

3. Tui Na:
Tui-Na is a manipulative therapy with features resembling massage and also chiropractic, though it is guided by the same theoretical and traditional principles as acupuncture. It is usually offered in conjunction with acupuncture and the other interventions associated with TCM, and there is a great scarcity of scientific research on its purported effects. It is usually included in global TCM treatment, so few studies exist examining it independent of acupuncture, herbs, and other TCM interventions. One example, looking at tui na for degenerative spinal disease in the neck (cervical spondylosis) found no good evidence of benefit.

It is tempting to lump this therapy in with massage, which like acupuncture has benefits for pain, anxiety, and other symptoms with a significant psychological component but which has not been demonstrated to meaningfully affect the outcome of any specific disease process. However, I have not found any detailed comparisons of different manual therapies and their relative effects, so this would just be speculation.

Is It Safe?
As with efficacy, the safety of TCM has to be evaluated in terms of the individual interventions employed. Acupuncture has known risks, including infections, trauma to nerves and muscles, and even death from inadvertent penetration of the chest with needles, which allows air to enter and collapses the lungs. Recently, the former president of South Korea was seen by doctors for a cough and ended up needing to have an acupuncture needle surgically removed from one of his lungs. A recent review suggests that these risks are small, and can be minimized with proper training and regulation of acupuncturists, but they are not non-existent, and in the face of questionable evidence for real benefits, even small risks seem hard to justify.

The risks of herbal remedies are likely much greater, though they are hard to evaluate in the absence of meaningful government regulation and monitoring. Herbal remedies contain active chemical compounds, and these can have direct toxic effects and they can interfere with other medications. TCM remedies have been repeatedly found to be contaminated with toxic metals, such as lead and mercury, and even conventional pharmaceuticals.

Chinese herbal remedies containing a plant called Aristolochia have been known to cause kidney failureDeaths have been caused by the remedy ma huang due to the chemical stimulants it contains, and this product has been banned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). And herbal remedies have been found to be contaminated with lead and other toxins as well as pharmaceuticals. A list of references below is given illustrating the considerable risks associated with untested and unregulated herbal preparations in general, including TCM remedies, can be found here.

I am not aware of any reports of harm from tui na therapy.

Bottom Line
The theoretical concepted promoted as the rationale for Traditional Chinese Medicine are essentially religious in their origins. They do not correlate with recognized physical phenomena understood by science, and they apparently cannot be evaluated by scientific means. The specific interventions employed in TCM, acupuncture, herbal remedies, tui na, and dietary manipulation, have not been extensively evaluated through high-quality controlled clinical testing. By far the most research has been conducted on acupuncture, which appears to have placebo benefits for subjective symptoms regardless of whether it is applied according to TCM principles or not. Most herbal remedies in TCM have not been scientifically evaluated. A few have shown promise for some conditions, but a few have also proven deadly, and potentially dangerous contamination with toxins and undisclosed pharmaceuticals is apparently common. There is no reliable evidence base concerning the safety or efficacy of TCM for pets. The few studies available do not show a consistent pattern of significant benefits.

Posted in Acupuncture, General, Herbs and Supplements | 37 Comments

The Economist says, “There is no alternative medicine.”

It’s rare to see the popular press cover alternative medicine in anything but a friendly way. Because those selling CAM are selling hope and faith as an integral part of most of their remedies, there tends to be a positive feeling in the public’s mind about these approaches even when the facts don’t support the specific claims being made. However, The Economist recently published two stories which say what I think the public most needs to hear about CAM in general: Most of it doesn’t actually work as medicine but it does have clear placebo effects.

One article, entitled There is No Alternative Medicine, puts it quite clearly (though I’m a bit skeptical that the specific percentage provided is reliable):

A few treatments (mostly herbs containing active drug molecules) do have proven benefits. A few others look worthy of further investigation. But from acupuncture, via homeopathy, to “quantum healing”, the vast majority, some 95%, offer nothing more than the placebo effect…

Globally, the industry is estimated to be worth some $60 billion a year. That is a lot to pay for placebos.

The world’s advertising-standards offices should thus crack down on bogus claims—including the idea that there is such a thing as “alternative medicine” in the first place. If it works, it is a medicine and should be regulated like one.

…the alternative-medicine industry plainly excels as a placebo delivery service.

I do think the author goes a bit too far in crediting the placebo effect with true improvements in a patient’s state of health, rather than improvements only in how the patient feels, which is a quite different, though still very important, thing. The evidence that placebo effects actually change the course of disease is very weak, and their primary benefit seems to be in alleviating highly subjective symptoms such as pain, nausea, depression, and so on.

Nevertheless, I agree that there are lessons to be learned from the success of the alternative medicine industry, and that chief among these is that science-based medicine must find ways to provide the same kind of psychological support people find in their CAM therapists without giving up rigorous scientific standards of evidence for the actual safety and efficacy of our interventions.

The second article, Think Yourself Better, makes this point in more detail, focusing on the work of Edzard Ernst in revealing the lack of good evidence for biological effects of most alternative therapies while also pointing out that people seek these therapies despite their lack of effectiveness because of the psychological support and comfort they provide. The tremendous success of scientific medicine is based on the principle that therapies cannot be justified only because they “seem” to work but that they must also be validated by controlled research that eliminates the influence of human psychology and cognitive weaknesses on the results. However, as strongly as I support that approach, I agree that in the real world of patient care, even in veterinary medicine, human psychology plays a critical role in the success of failure of our attempts as clinicians to manage the health of our patients. We need to stick to our epistemological guns and be certain we are offering truly effective therapies, but we also need to be effectively supportive of our patients or clients feelings about health and disease. If we are unable to do this, due to constraints on time or resources, deficits in our training, or other factors, then our clients will continue to be vulnerable to being sold ineffective therapies provided in ways that meet the psychological needs associated with their health even when they don’t meet the biological needs healthcare interventions should meet as a basic precondition of being employed.

Posted in General | Leave a comment