Stem Cell Tourism in China

I've written before about StemEnhance, a piece of pseudomedicine that purports to improve "wellness" by stimulating stem cell release from the bone marrow. In that post I questioned whether the supplement a)did what they claimed and b)whether, if it worked as advertised, the mobilization of stem cells would have a positive, negative or no effect.

Well now, instead of $60 a bottle for algae extract, you can drop a grand on a flight to China and another $20000 to be injected with umbilical cord cells - guaranteeing an at least temporary boost of stem cells in the body. (Nevermind that these cells are foreign and will be attacked by the immune system) Of course the same questions remain: Will this kind of treatment have positive, negative or no effect? Dr. Hu, the chairman of the company selling this treatment claims that 70% of the 3000 patients who have had these injections for a variety of conditions have seen an improvement. On the other hand, the NPR article (linked above) points out:

No rigorous, controlled clinical trials were carried out before the treatment was offered to patients. No research has yet been published in established peer-review journals overseas. And no one knows for sure what the possible risks might be.

So once again, we have an untested, unproven therapy. Let's look at the possible scenarios:

1) The injections work. People's varying conditions are being improved. Great! Test it. Prove it. Show it's safe. Yes trials are expensive, but why wouldn't you want to do it to silence skeptics, better understand what's going on and potentially improve this kind of treatment. However, the likelihood of this therapy working as advertised is small.

Bruce Dobkin is director of the neurologic rehabilitation and research program at the University of California, Los Angles. In response to questions from NPR, he writes in an e-mail that "it is extreme nonsense to think that cells can be incorporated into the complex nervous system and do so much, when we cannot even get cells in mice and rats to do very much.

There's also no evidence that umbilical cord stem cells can become the kind of neurons these doctors are claiming, nor evidence that they'll even get to the desired site to begin with.

2) The injections have negative effects. Regardless of whether these injections are a useful treatment, there's the very real posibility that there could be serious consequences that haven't been discovered (no testing means no awareness of effects good or bad). Immune response. Cancer. Take your pick.

3) The injections have no effect at all. Thanks for your 20 grand! Goodbye.

This kind of treatment may hold some future promise, but once again someone is putting the cart before the horse when it comes to stem cell treatments. Do the research, then treat. And don't ask desperate families to plonk down crazy amounts of money for what is generously described as experimental treatment. Sadly, this makes StemEnhance look good by comparison.

More blog reaction here and here.

Quack of the Week: John McCain

To be fair, both Democratic presidential hopefuls seem to be unaware of the science surrounding the issue^* but John McCain is being singled out for the following statement which he made last week:

"It's indisputable that (autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what's causing it. And we go back and forth and there's strong evidence that indicates that it's got to do with a preservative in vaccines."

Probably the same kind of 'strong evidence' that there were WMDs in Iraq. But this isn't really about McCain per se - there is no shortage of people who share this stance - it's about the idea that mercury-based preservatives (thimerosal) in vaccines are responsible for a rise in autism.

First of all, is it even true that autism and autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are on the rise? It's possible that what we're seeing is an increase in diagnosis of ASD rather than an increase in the disorders themselves - either due to improved diagnostic tests or changes in the way these disorders are classified. This paper from the journal Pediatrics puts some numbers to that idea and shows that autism diagnoses took an upswing at the same time that diagnoses of mental retardation and learning disability declined suggesting that changes in diagnostics may explain the apparant autism epidemic. Orac at Respectful Insolence blogs about this paper in greater depth.

Regardless of whether autism is actually on the rise or not, it's still important to find out the underlying cause. Are mercury-containing vaccines the culprit? The science says no. A link between thimerosal-containing vaccines is not supported by science. Several studies have been done that show no causal link between mercury in vaccines and autism.

"But still," some will say, "we avoid eating certain fish because of mercury levels, so having it in vaccines makes no sense." First of all, the mercury build-up in fish (methyl-mercury) is different from the form in thimerosal (ethyl-mercury). Ethyl-mercury has a much shorter half life and does not build up in the body the same way. And that's beside the point: in the US thimerosal hasn't been used as a preservative in recommended childhood vaccines since 2001. Yet in the US and other countries that no longer use thimerosal, autism diagnoses continue to rise. This tells us that it's not the mercury, but more likely - as mentioned above - changes in the way autism spectrum disorders are identified.

For those who refuse getting vaccinated "to be on the safe side": Don't. Vaccines are responsible for the eradication of smallpox, near-eradication of polio and a host of other diseases (presumably, this is why anti-vaxers feel they can get away with it - because there's little fear of smallpox, polio and the like). Not receiving these routine childhood vaccinations has real public health implications. It's irresponsible to not have your children vaccinated.

As for John McCain, it's irresponsible for HIM to make such strong claims about a connection between mercury in vaccines and an autism epidemic. He needs to surround himself with better science advisors than that.



^*Clinton says: "I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines. [...] I will ensure that all vaccines are as safe as possible for our children by working to ensure that Thimerosal and mercury are removed from vaccines."

Obama says: "An Obama administration will go where the science and the facts lead us, whether it is about climate change or toxic heavy metals in our environment. [...] I support the removal of thimerosal from all vaccines and work to ensure that Americans have access to vaccines that are mercury free."

(source: Age of Autism)

Some people argue that these viewpoints are worse than the stronger McCain statement.

How Quackery "Works" Part 6: Confirmation Bias

Most quackery and pseudoscience depends on testimonial evidence rather than scientific evidence. In the absence of controlled trials, there are many other explanations for why a treatment seems to work, when it actually doesn't. This series of posts aims to address those explanations and to highlight how anecdotal evidence is no replacement for controlled scientific study.

So far, this series has tried to explain reasons for false positives - how people can think something is working when it isn't. The next couple of posts will focus on why those false positives seem to be all that's reported. It's a common refrain in the face of skepticism that "there are none who have anything negative to say about the product." In the comments of the last post on recall bias, AC pointed out that you're more likely to recall the one time a treatment 'works' than the hundreds of times that it doesn't. Confirmation bias is searching for or interpreting facts in a way that supports or confirms existing beliefs (or, conversely, ignoring evidence that contradicts existing belief). The Skeptic's Dictionary offers the following example:

" if you believe that during a full moon there is an increase in admissions to the emergency room where you work, you will take notice of admissions during a full moon, but be inattentive to the moon when admissions occur during other nights of the month."

(More on that particular fiction here) Confirmation bias is an underlying element of all the reasons for positive testimony previously discussed in this series. The placebo effect causes temporary relief - this is confirmatory. Fluctuating symptoms give the appearance of a working treatment - this is confirmatory. When AC (quoted above) says you're more likely to recall the one time when something works than the times when it doesn't it isn't just about remembering, it's about a natural cognitive bias to confirm our hypotheses.

Deliberate or no, this leads to an accumulation of testimony asserting a treatment works. And this effect is self-amplifying: someone who purchases the next miracle pill searches out confirming testimony. This confirming data convinces the purchaser that the product *does* work, leading to yet another piece of positive testimony. Scientists are not immune to this, and similarly publication bias is the tendency for positive results to be treated differently from negative ones. To combat confirmation bias, one must consider all evidence - whether it confirms or not - and, rely on solid experimental evidence. Furthermore, the peer-review process helps minimize false results due to confirmation bias, unless the reviewers hold the same bias themselves.

How Quackery "Works" Part 5: Recall Bias

Most quackery and pseudoscience depends on testimonial evidence rather than scientific evidence. In the absence of controlled trials, there are many other explanations for why a treatment seems to work, when it actually doesn't. This series of posts aims to address those explanations and to highlight how anecdotal evidence is no replacement for controlled scientific study.

A common psychological bias that plagues retrospective and self-reporting studies is recall bias. This is when answers aren't based strictly on observation but also on the responder's memory. Because memories can be influenced or otherwise unreliable, relying on recall to draw conclusions can be problematic. This bias is unintentional, and can often be based on expectation. For example, if you have a cavity you may 'remember' eating more sweets than usual, even if it's not the case. There are other examples in the literature: A study of mothers in Brazil found that richer or better educated women were more likely to over-recall breast-feeding durations. A more relevant example is recall bias among parents of autistic children. After publication of a paper suggesting a link between autism and the MMR vaccine, parents were more likely to "recall the onset [of autism] as shortly after MMR more often than parents of similar children who were diagnosed prior to the publicity." Preconceived ideas of what the answer is (or should be) can taint recall.

Testimonials given in support of a product are also subject to recall bias. Given the above example, one can easily imagine a now-healthy person recalling that they started to get better 'around the same time' as starting a supplement even if there are other reasons for an improvement. This inaccuracy of memory, or even differences in what two groups are likely to recall can lead to incorrect conclusions and false positive testimony. Recall bias can be a problem for evidence-based clinical studies as well. Anytime memory and self-reporting is involved, this opens an opportunity for this kind of unconscious bias. A good study needs to take this into account in its design. Ideally, direct empirical measurements are used to eliminate recall and self-reporting altogether, but that isn't always possible. In retrospective studies, good questionnaire design helps minimize recall bias. For example, detailed questions or blinding the subject to the hypothesis help with accurate reporting. While neither evidence-based studies nor anecdote aggregation is immune, a product pitch based on several individual self-reported testimonials is more likely to suffer from recall bias than a well-designed retrospective study.

Read more about recall bias here.

When Quackery Doesn't Work

As I take a short break from explaining why quackery sometimes seems to work and why so much positive testimony exists (don't worry, there is more of that series to come) I thought I'd point out a site that documents what can happen when quackery doesn't work.

(yes, I realize the irony of using anecdotes to fight quackery)

Found via The Quantum Pontiff

How Quackery "Works" Part 4: Natural healing/additional treatments

Most quackery and pseudoscience depends on testimonial evidence rather than scientific evidence. In the absence of controlled trials, there are many other explanations for why a treatment seems to work, when it actually doesn't. This series of posts aims to address those explanations and to highlight how anecdotal evidence is no replacement for controlled scientific study.

Regression fallacies offer an explanation as to how an ineffective treatment can seem to work due to random fluctuations of symptoms. Very similar to this idea is the body's natural healing process. While regression to the mean explains that a person perceives that a treatment is working while overall their condition remains unchanged, with natural healing or additional treatments the body may actually be getting better but not because of the new treatment.

The body is a natural healer. A cold, for example, will go away on its own without any over-the-counter or alternative treatment. More serious ailments do require treatment and it's likely that patients continue with conventional treatments while desperately trying whatever 'alternative medicines' they can find. For example, a cancer patient may be undergoing standard chemotherapy and radiation treatments when they decide to add a new cancer fighting tea blend to the mix. The cancer goes into remission. Which gets credit - the chemo or the tea? It's the most dangerous of quacks who advise against conventional treatment while peddling their own cures. Lifestyle changes can also be included with additional treatments. Someone complaining of fatigue may change their diet and begin exercising more while also taking their favorite algae supplement. The end result may be an improvement, but the reason is unclear.

When it comes to quacks and pseudoscience, all three of these scenarios - natural healing, additional treatment and lifestyle change - can lead to positive testimonial: "I took treatment X, and my condition improved." The reality is that the statement may be true but that doesn't mean that 'treatment X' is the causative agent for improvement. Evidence based medicine relies on appropriate controls (placebo, existing treatment) and large sample sizes to separate treatment effects from other reasons for improvement.

Quack of the week: Rupert Sheldrake

I was recently listening to Rupert Sheldrake on the "how to think about science" series of podcast. While he makes some interesting points about the state of science, and what it means to be on the fringe of science, I couldn't help to think his ideas were too improbable to seriously consider. In fact I won't bother enumerating all of them but you can check them out yourself. In any case he differs from other quacks we've talked about because he's not trying to take advantage of anyone, he just wants his ideas to be tested, and people to respect his science, no matter how improbable it is. One of those ideas is that there are invisible fields (think electro-magnetic) which connect everything in the world, so that when one makes an observation, the knowledge gained travels to every related entity. For example he says that the first time a certain chemical is crystallized, it then decides for every subsequent event how other crystals will form, and the process will also be faster as if crystals were learning. This hypothesis in his opinion is superior to the one chemist already hold, which is that tiny crystals get carried in beards and clothes and hair of traveling chemist which somehow manage to make their way into other people's experiments and gives rise to a "diminishing polymorph". In biological terms this could be compared to a prion: it is a replicating entity which converts a population of related chemical found in various forms, into a single crystalline form. I found this latter idea actually quite interesting and far more likely than ones which needs to conjure up new physics. Is there any evidence for the "crystal beard hypothesis"? Well it turns out that yes there is, and it is fascinating.

The first example is rintonavir, an anti-viral manufactured by Abbott. It turns out that a particular conformation of the drug spontaneously formed in 1998 in their American manufacturing plant. This Form-2 was less effective as a drug, and it was able to catalyze the conversion of the old drug into this new form. The contaminated plant, despite efforts to clean it up was never able to produce form-1 ever again and had to be shut down. Meanwhile the Italian plant picked up the slack, until an American scientist came to visit, and seemingly introduced the rogue drug, probably through his clothing, and wrecked the whole operation there too.

The second example comes from Canada, and lead to some patent litigation. It turns out that paxil, can occur in two variants also. The second variant was useful because it enabled the company which had ownership of the drug to extend patent life. Now comes in Apotex, a Canadian generic manufacturer, which makes the first form of paxil, which is equally effective and now off-patent. Well it turns out that crystals contaminated their plants too and started converting their paxil into the new variant. This of course meant that they were making a drug which was owned by somebody else and prevented them from making the old patent-free version. I'm sure the pharmaceutical industry loved that one.

It makes one wonder about the dangers of self-replicating products of synthetic biology...

How Quackery "Works" Part 3: Regression to the Mean

Most quackery and pseudoscience depends on testimonial evidence rather than scientific evidence. In the absence of controlled trials, there are many other explanations for why a treatment seems to work, when it actually doesn't. This series of posts aims to address those explanations and to highlight how anecdotal evidence is no replacement for controlled scientific study.

How a person feels isn't static, it fluctuates. You can feel tired one day but not the next. If you suffer from migraines, one can be more severe than the next. How "well" you feel can vary from day to day, even if overall your condition isn't changing (neither improving nor declining). Regression to the mean is the tendency of extreme measurements to be less extreme (closer to the mean) on subsequent measurements. A example that should be familiar to most sports fans is the concept of the 'sophomore slump'. This is when an athlete has performs more poorly in their second season than they did in the rookie year. The reason for this isn't a slump per se, but rather due to the fact that the first measurement - an outstanding rookie season - lies at an extreme, while the second measurement is closer to the 'mean' performance for that player. That is, it's closer to the average standard of performance for that player. It looks like a slump, but in fact is due to random fluctuations in player performance.

The same principle holds for medical testimonial. An ineffective treatment may seem to work based on random fluctuation of symptoms, resulting in positive testimonial. In fact, people who are sick are more likely to look to experimental remedies and unconventional treatment when they feel at their worst. Since this first 'measurement' is at an extreme of their condition, subsequent 'measurements' of how they feel will be an improvement for purely statistical reasons as opposed to an effective treatment. Evidence-based medicines rely on multiple measurements and large sample sizes (a testimonial is a sample size of 1) to account for normal disease fluctuation and get statistically meaningful results.

How Quackery "Works" Part 2: Observer Expectancy Effects

Most quackery and pseudoscience depends on testimonial evidence rather than scientific evidence. In the absence of controlled trials, there are many other explanations for why a treatment seems to work, when it actually doesn't. This series of posts aims to address those explanations and to highlight how anecdotal evidence is no replacement for controlled scientific study.

Closely tied to the placebo, or subject expectancy, effect is observer expectancy effect. This is when an experimenter gets the results (s)he wants through unconscious manipulation. From wikipedia:

"An example of the observer-expectancy effect is demonstrated in music backmasking, in which hidden verbal messages are said to be audible when a recording is played backwards. Some people expect to hear hidden messages when reversing songs, and therefore hear the messages, but to others it sounds like nothing more than random sounds."

In terms of medical effects, this unconscious bias can manifest in the assessment of symptoms (usually qualitative). A rash looks 'better', hair looks shinier, a person looks less tired. Regarding testimonial evidence, it's hard to separate observer expectancy from placebo effect since the person is both the subject and the observer but both can result in positive testimony even in the absence of a working product. Evidence-based medicines rely on double-blind studies (ie. the researcher doesn't know who has been treated and who has been given placebo) to separate real effects from observer bias.

How Quackery "Works" Part 1: The Placebo Effect

A recent comment left on a 'Quack of the Week' post suggested that I should get my ass kicked for disrespecting testimonials. Most quackery and pseudoscience depends on testimonial rather than scientific evidence and the implied (and sometimes explicit) argument is along the lines of "If so many people have tried it and say it works, then it must be true". This is an example of the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum. Of course, the important question to ask is WHY do so many people believe an untested treatment is working? One of the possible answers is that it actually IS working. In the absence of controlled trials, there are many other explanations for why a treatment seems to work, when it actually doesn't. This series of posts aims to address those explanations and to highlight how anecdotal evidence is no replacement for controlled scientific study. The first of these explanations is one that most people have heard of: The placebo effect.

The placebo effect describes a situation when healing effects are observed from taking an inert compound (eg. a sugar pill, saline injection, etc.) The effect is based on the subject's expectation that a treatment will work. In this mind-over-matter scenario, the belief that a product will work leads to an alleviation of symptoms. Studies have shown that up to 30% of people respond positively to placebo, though the effects are temporary and fail to get at the root of the problem requiring treatment in the first place.

There is some debate about how the placebo effect works. Some argue that it's purely psychological, while others say that there is an actual physical effect - particularly in the context of pain relief, where there is data suggesting release of endorphins after placebo administration.

In terms of quackery, this is one reason for positive testimonials. The expectation of results causes the subject to feel better, hence the positive claim. However, with time, symptoms can return and conditions can worsen because the underlying problems aren't being addressed. Evidence-based medicines rely on placebo controls to separate the effects of an active treatment from the act of being treated.

Quirks and Quarks has a show about the placebo effect available here.

Quack of the Week: Toby Alexander and DNA Activation

According to dnaperfection.com:
"What exactly is DNA Activation?
Most people know that DNA is the 'blueprint of life' and is located in every cell of the body. In addition to each chromosome's 2 strand double helix of DNA, there are an additional 10 etheric strands of DNA available to each human, which have been dormant since the beginning of recorded history. Each additional strand possesses attributes that permit the individual to perform greater human accomplishments. Scientists acknowledge that we currently only use 3% of our current 2 strand DNA. Thus we live in a society where people are sick, unhappy, stressed out, create wars, have difficulty experiencing love, and are totally disconnected with the universe. Most people have to meditate for many years just to have a so-called 'mystical' experience, that's how disconnected we are now. Imagine activating 100% of your 2 strand DNA, PLUS 10 additional strands! You will go from using 10% of your brain to becoming a multi-dimensional being with psychic, telepathic, and manifestation abilities beyond anything you've ever dreamed of. Plus, you will stop the aging process and actually start to rejuvenate to look and feel YOUNGER. This is the Original Divine Blueprint, what man USED to be. It has been written that Jesus had 12 strands of DNA activated. There have been children born throughout the history of humanity to raise the frequency of the planet that have more than 2 strands of DNA active - they are known as Indigo children. These are the incredibly intelligent, loving, and amazing children that are being mistakenly diagnosed as having A.D.D. because they are too smart to pay attention in class. Your DNA is your blueprint of life and is what controls every single function inside each of your cells. If you change your DNA, you really will change your life."

This has got be one of the most blatant corruptions of molecular biology I have ever seen I my entire life. Check out the rest of the site at dnaperfection.com for some more laughs. The material is endless - I can't even begin to cover it all here. These guys are TOTAL lunatics.

Quack of the week (Pt. 2): Water, water everywhere...

What could be better for you than vortexed water with a long energy wave field? Vortexed ALKALINE water with a long energy wave field.

One of the baybs from the Bay sent us this juicy tidbit: The Kangen Water Maker. Behind this slick website is another 'miracle' water treatment that can solve your problems of indigestion, diabetes, obesity, osteoporosis and constipation (among other things). It's good for non-health applications too: artists and painters can expect more vibrant hues and smoother strokes when their paints are mixed with alkaline water! Apparantly Kangen means 'return to original' in Japanese (according to one seller) which is ironic because pure, unadulterated water should have a pH of 7 not the pH 8-9.5 that these guys suggest you drink.

How does it work? The Kangen water maker is basically an electrolysis machine that uses dissolved minerals to acidify or alkalize water. This alkaline water, they claim, contains water molecules that cluster in groups of 5-7 instead of 10-14 like 'normal' water. The theory is that the smaller molecular grouping allows the water to travel to places regular water can't, making it better for hydration and delivery of nutrients. Additionally, they claim that Kangen water alters body pH, which prevents acid build up, an associated leaching of calcium from bone and increase in fatty acid deposits.

Why doesn't it work? Even if you can maintain alkaline water for more than a transient period of time (this is accomplished by adding minerals to the water, which can alter the taste - just think about drinking 'hard' water which is also alkaline) as soon as it hits the strong acids of the stomach any alkalinity will be neutralized. Not to mention there seems to be no scientific evidence that this clustering effect is real or that it would be anything more than fleetingly transient. Most studies support the idea of a dynamically changing, disordered water structure. Not to mention that there are water quacks out there who pitch acidic water or water with LARGER clusters as the true 'healing' water.

Of course this has all the standard hallmarks of quackery to go with the pseudoscience: untested medical claims and large disclaimers about lack of FDA review. Some sellers are part of multi-level marketing schemes, and one goes so far as to combine his selling of water ionizers with marine phytoplankton for 'the best whole food nutrition available' and our pet favourite StemEnhance.

For a more in-depth analysis of the pseudoscience of alkaline water, this chemist from SFU does a pretty thorough debunking.

Quack of the week: Healing Water Online

In our last quack of the week, Kamel exposed companies selling algae found in pond water, and claiming they could harness the power of your stem cells. This week I found an even more impressive treatment: tap water. That's right someone has found a way to sell you tap water with the premise that it will heal you. And it's not even Coca-Cola.

Here is the explanation. First you have to accept the fact that genes do not control life. That's a lie. We just repeated it for so long that that we have come to believe it is true. But apparently it was never tested scientifically. If you don't believe me, watch this video. The quack behind this video is Dr. Bruce Lipton, who apparently was teaching medicine at the University of Wisconsin. He also wrote a book called the "Biology of Belief", which is a deceptive title since it's actually about changing your own biology with your mind. The irony of which seems to be lost on the author. Apparently he's also pretty much discovered epigenetics, which if you were not aware explains how energy from the mind alters protein expression.

While lots of nutjobs seem to love the book, there are few amusing reviews on amazon such as this one by a Columbia University researcher:

"Furthermore, Dr. Lipton claims that illness can be cured by mere belief. This isn't only nonsense; it is incredibly unprofessional and irresponsible. This is the equivalent of a TV Evangelist banging his palm against the foreheads of cancer patients, pushing them back down in their seats and proclaiming them cured, only to then say later to an investigating reporter who mentions that the patients later died that the Lord's magic stopped working because doubt entered into the hearts of the disbelieving patients. What an incredibly cruel sentiment. "

Which brings me back to water. Dr Lipton's ideas have inspired the creators of "Healing Water Online" because apparently your mind can also alter water and vice-versa. Now I'm sure a cold shower can elicit some spiritual experiences in some people (I highly recommend that link). In fact I often praise the lord when somebody flushes while I'm in the shower. But this is different. Somehow, this has to do with the energy you can produce with your mind, and the unique properties of water. For example did you know that:

"Water's reputation as a powerful solvent derives from its ability to absorb energy vibrations and its particular electromagnetic and chemical qualities, being able to break down substances into their constituent parts. Naturally flowing water creates complex structures: micro clusters of vibrating energy centres, constantly receiving and transmuting energy from every contact the water body makes; and laminar structures which generate energy from the interaction of the planes against each other."

So how can I harness this power you ask? Well it's easy, you just need to buy a $144 jug that has a propeller inside. Why? Well isn't obvious by now:

"The compact motor housed in the lid of the 2-litre jug drives a left-turning silver propeller wich forms a beautiful vortex throughout the depth of the plain tap water for 3½ minutes; this re-enlivens, restructures, reoxygenates and purifies the water by the spiral movement alone.
The energy wave field of normal tap water is 35 cm; Living Water Vortex Jug's is 2,4 metres! A healthy person has an energy wavelength of about 1,9 metres, and as a person consists of 75% water, s/he will be regenerated by the greater energy of restructured water."

Wow what a deal. That's almost a 26% increase of your wavelenght, or only 88 cents per centimeter! And they also suggest you combine your healing water with long distance healing. That's right, for only $44 they will channel energy to you, sorta like what kamel's power to make people dumb at a distance. Actually it's exactly like that.

Off the deep end: Great scientists with not-so-great ideas

Scientists have an esteemed place in our society. I say this with an obvious degree of bias. Scientists are also human, and as such they aren't infallable. They can have biases and prejudices and crazy ideas like anybody else. They can make mistakes. Galileo didn't believe that the moon was responsible for the tides and concocted his own (incorrect) theory. Thomas Edison, in his later years, subscribed to a fad diet - consuming a pint of milk every 3 hours as his only liquid intake - to improve his health. Mendeleev believed in an aether, consisting of 2 lighter-than-hydrogen elements, permeating all matter.

Some beliefs are merely a product of the times, or big ideas that didn't pan out, others are not, but the bottom line is that scientists are not all-knowing. Expertise in one area doesn't mean expertise in all others. Here are some other examples of scientists gone astray (and all but one of them has won the Nobel prize) - and why we shouldn't take every word as truth without some critical thinking.

James Watson - The inspiration for this post requires little description, as his recent comments about African intelligence have been discussed both on this blog and throughout the blogosphere. This isn't the first time Watson has stirred controversy with his remarks. He has come under fire for comments about homosexuality, women in science, eugenics and previous racially charged remarks.

William Shockley - Another Nobel prize winner, this time for physics (1956). Shockley was concerned about a 'dysgenic' effect in the population and, like Watson, made several comments about the intelligence of people of other races. His thoughts about eugenics - he once proposed that people with below average intelligence should be paid to undergo voluntary sterilizaion - and his racist views left him ostracized by his friends and family, and his scientific accomplishments tarnished.

Sir Isaac Newton - Inventor of calculus. Father of classical mechanics. Alchemist? In between his theory of gravity and the publication of Principia Mathematica, Newton sought the fabled Philosopher's Stone despite the heavy penalties for practicing alchemy at the time. His quest to turn lead into gold was never published, but was rediscovered when John Maynard Keyes bought many of Newton's unpublished works at auction and, after learning their contents, proclaimed that "Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians." Newton's study of alchemy might be explained as an offshoot of his scientific study at a time when science and alchemy were intertwined, but his odd pursuits also extended to bibilical prophecy - including predictions about the end of the world.

Kary Mullis - The acid-dropping, surfing, Nobel prize winner, unsurprisingly, has his own share of controversial ideas. The inventor of PCR has been associated with Peter Duesberg in the past and has been highly skeptical of the HIV-AIDS link - making him a poster child for the HIV denialist movement. Mullis is also skeptical of man-made global warming and disagrees with the idea that CFCs cause ozone depletion. All of these views go against mainstream scientific consensus. On top of that, he's a firm believer in astrology and even devotes a chunk of his autobiography, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, to its validity. Oh, and he's had a possible alien encounter with a speaking, glowing, raccoon-like creature.

Linus Pauling - Pauling has the distinction of being the only person to win 2 unshared Nobel Prizes as a brilliant scientist (Chemistry, 1954) and an anti-war advocate (Peace, 1962). Pauling is also responsible, in part, for the widespread belief that megadoses of vitamin C is an effective cold remedy - a claim that hasn't stood up to scientific scrutiny (doses up to 250mg may reduce symptom severity, but beyond that no benefits were observed). Pauling's views on 'orthomolecular medicine', as he dubbed it, is reminiscent of the quackery we discuss on the Bayblab from time to time: any noticeable changes were attributed to Vitamin C, while ineffectiveness was chalked up to 'too low a dose'. And the illness cured by his high vitamin doses also expanded - from curing the common cold, then curing cancer and finally to "improve your general health . . . to increase your enjoyment of life and can help in controlling heart disease, cancer, and other diseases and in slowing down the process of aging."

The point here isn't to downplay the accomplishments of otherwise brilliant men or run some sort of smear campaign. We need to remember that nobody is an expert on everything and anyone can make mistakes - we need to think and evaluate for ourselves. Quackery or racism shouldn't be tolerated from anyone but if Watson wants to chat with me about DNA structure or Mullis about PCR I'm willing to listen.

Quack of the week: Christian Drapeau/Stem Enhance

• We've neglected this Bayblab feature for some time now, but Kenny G (lab guru, not saxophonist) gave us a tip on this story.
  
  Christian Drapeau (M.Sc) is the chief science officer and co-holder of the US patent for StemEnhance, a proprietary blue-green algae (Aphanizomenon flos-aquae) extract used to 'mobilize stem cells'. The extract contains a "novel L-selectin ligand" that promotes the release of CD34+ stem cells from bone marrow as well as a polysaccharaide-enriched mystery extract called Migratose(tm) that "MAY support the migration of stem cells out of the blood into tissues" (emphasis mine).
  
  Nevermind the existing concerns about taking non-Spirulina blue-green algae extracts - how does the science look? Mr. Drapeau was an author on a paper describing the CD34+ mobilization (I'll admit that puts him ahead of many of the other of the quacks we discuss who don't submit data for peer review). Let's take a look at one figure that shows an increase of circulating CD34+ lymphocytes:
  

OK, the extract treatment shows an increase CD34+ cells. A whopping increase from 0.062% to 0.085% (which of course is billed as a 30% increase). Now take a look at the placebo treatment. No increase, just as they claim, but the initial percentage of circulating CD34+ cells is already as high as AFTER StemEnhance treatment. Can anything meaningful be taken from this result? If you continue to read the paper, you'll find that the increase is quite transient, peaking after 60 minutes but lasting no more than 2 hours and that the effect in one person on 16 different test days can vary wildly (from a 300% increase in CD34+ to a 4% decrease).

The product that this data is meant to support is StemEnhance, a miracle stem cell mobilizer that improves healing and maintains proper tissue and organ functioning in your body. A single, 30-serving (60 tablet) bottle costs $60 with a recommended dose of 2 capsules once or twice a day. But before shelling out up to $120 a month, consider the following:

1)Does StemEnhance actually mobilize stem cells as it claims? The only published data is poor at best, as discussed above.

2)Is there any scientific evidence that 'stem cell mobilization' offers any health benefit? Like most quackery, StemEnhance relies on anecdotal evidence and testamonials to support their claims.

3)Is there any evidence that IF stem cell mobilization offers a health benefit, the increase in circulating CD34+ claimed by StemEnhance is biologically relevant? 30% may seem like a lot, but what does that mean in absolute numbers? Is that 1000 cells? 100? Is that enough to make a difference?

4)What are potential long term or other potential outcomes of increased circulating stem cells? A recent paper discussed at Journal Club talks about bone marrow stem cells localizing to breast cancers and increase metastatic potential.

Don't just listen to me, though. Other StemEnhance criticism can be found at MLM watch and The Scientist.

On top of the dubious product claims, StemEnhance has another hallmark of potential scams: a multi-level marketing scheme. That's right, you too can distribute StemEnhance and become a block in the pyramid upon whose back others will profit. But don't just take StemEnhance to improve your OWN health, you can buy StemPets and StemEquine and have your animal friends reap the benefits as well. Me? I think I'll buy some for my duck. Quack, quack, quack.

Quack of the week: A wolfberry in sheep's clothing

The goji or wolfberry (Lycium barbarum) are rich in vitamin and nutritional content and have been the subject of numerous medical claims. One of the most vocal supporters of this 'miracle berry' is Earl Mindell, a nutritionist and author of several nutrition books. Mindell is also involved with a company, FreeLife International, pushing 'Himalayan Goji Juice' as a 'powerful anti-aging food.' Bottles of the juice can run up to $50 for 1 litre, but when tested in the lab by CBC Marketplace, contained few of the nutrients found in the berry itself (in fact the label of the bottle avoids making vitamin claims). Instead the product relies on 4 'master molecules' - polysaccharides in the juice - having a unique 'spectral signature' not found in other goji products.

One of the several health claims made my "Dr." Mindell (Mindell holds a Ph.D from Pacific Western, an uaccredited unversity) is the cancer-fighting properties of goji juice. He claims that a study out of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre shows that goji berry extract inhibits growth of hormone-responsive breast cancer cells - a claim that Sloan-Kettering has distanced itself from. The berry extract has show this property in vitro, but safety and efficacy hasn't been tested in humans. Even the author of the study being used to promote the product says his research does not show that goji juice has anti-cancer properties. If goji extract is able to inhibit cancer growth, it certainly hasn't been demonstrated beyond a tissue culture dish or using Mindell's vitamin-depleted version.

On top of the dubious health claims made about Himalayan Goji Juice, the whole company reeks of a pyramid scheme. New customers must be referred by a 'Freelife Marketing Executive' for the privilege of shelling out $500 a month on goji. You can become a 'marketing executive' for just a small fee ($40 US) and earn money for recruiting new customers to the goji craze. In addition, you get a small percentage for each successive level of recruitment in their multi-level marketing system.

So lets review:
1) stands to make a large amount of money from sick/desperate people
2) exaggerated medical claims
3) claims based on single, non-comprehensive, in vitro studies
4) reliance on testimonials, rather than scientific evidence to back claims
5) pyramid-scheme like marketing system

How does the saying go? If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck.... quack, quack, quack.

Watch the CBC Marketplace report on Mindell and Himalayan Goji Juice here.

Quack of the week

The quack of the week winner is Jim Rutz, who is the spokesman for the worldwide house church community, founder of the open church ministries and author of such illustrious books as "The Meaning of Life". He recently earned his quack badge by writing a series of articles against soy and how it is making kids gay. I am not kidding : "Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal."

Unfortunately he doesn't quote the source, because I'd like to know where they found that soy can be fatal o infants. In fact the most recent research about soy and post-natal sexual development in the journal of Toxicology Science states that "There were no effects in females dosed with 4 mg/kg genistein, the predicted exposure level for infants drinking soy-based infant formulas. There were no consistent effects on male offspring at either dose level of genistein."

So I have a hard time figuring out how Jim came to the conclusion that: "Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them."

Yes Jim that's what's wrong with America: Tofu. Goddam liberals and their phytoestrogens...

Quack of the week

This quack seems to think he can bend the laws of physics to make free energy: "Orbo produces free, clean and constant energy - that is our claim. By free we mean that the energy produced is done so without recourse to external source. By clean we mean that during operation the technology produces no emissions. By constant we mean that with the exception of mechanical failure the technology will continue to operate indefinitely."
Unfortunately there are no details yet on what the technology is, but it seems based on magnetism (forum), which according to the inventor (wikipedia), is being tested by over 500 scientists. Somehow I find that hard to believe. Check out this interview (video) with the man...

Quack of the week

This week's quackery is a bit less expensive, and a little less dangerous and it looks like a small purple dildo. The Tesla purple personal oscillator can not only serve as a sex toy but apparently also as an electro-magnetic shield, and an energy source. According to Life technology (TM), this invention comes from exclusive papers from Tesla himself. He must be oscillating in his grave. According to the company "The Tesla Purple Energy Shield™ emits vast quantities of energy, which directly repairs, strengthens and protects the energetic fields of the human mind body and soul". Wow a new energy source you're thinking, finally we can wean ourselves from fossil fuels.

How does it work? : "The Tesla Purple Energy Shield™ outer shell is made of aluminium, which is first anodised (electrolytic oxidation) and then colored. The spin of the atoms and electrons of the aluminium is thus changed in such a way, that The Tesla Purple Energy Shield™ is said to vibrate in resonance with the fundamental energy (Chi, Prana, Orgon) of the universe. (...) With anodising, the field of the plating is changed and interacts with tachyons. The surface of the plating has a unique crystal-structure."
Wow now this is cool, I didn't remember reading about this in quantum mechanics, but I love to think that the anodization of my beer can will create faster than light particles.

What does it do? : well many things, but my personal favorites is that it repairs DNA and retards aging! Wow somebody needs to send one to Aubrey De Grey. "will support the immune system and physical healing (e.g. headaches, cuts, wounds, fractures etc.)". Notice how all these quacks always refer back to the immune system...

How do we measure the effect? : "the use of The Tesla Purple Energy Shield™ will eventually raise your frequency rate of angstrom units per second." hmm lets see, yeah frequency rate, you mean Hz or something (oscilation/second)? hmmm angstrom per second, you mean speed? Like on the highway my car goes at 2.7e11 angstrom/sec. I'll tell that to the cop next time...

At 179$ I don't see how anyone could pass this up.