Consumer Health Digest, Issue #22-08 (original) (raw)

Consumer Health Digest is a free weekly e-mail newsletter edited by William M. London, Ed.D., M.P.H., with help from Stephen Barrett, M.D., It summarizes scientific reports; legislative developments; enforcement actions; other news items; Web site evaluations; recommended and nonrecommended books; research tips; and other information relevant to consumer protection and consumer decision-making. The Digest’s primary focus is on health, but occasionally it includes non-health scams and practical tips. Items posted to this archive may be updated when relevant information becomes available. To subscribe, click here.

Ontario promoter of “integrative” cancer care will be disciplined. The Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal has concluded that Dr. Akbar Nauman Khan did not properly care for 12 patients between 2012 and 2017. [Mandel M. Doc found ‘incompetent’ in treatment of cancer patients. Toronto Sun, Feb 16, 2022] After examining extensive evidence, the tribunal issued a 271-page report that noted that, among other things, Khan had:

• diagnosed a 59-year-old woman with acute leukemia, inappropriately treated her with a magnolia bark extract called honokiol and low-dose naltrexone, and insisted that she had leukemia after an oncologist said she never did
• told others they were improving under his “alternative” therapies even though their cancers were advancing
• claimed that supposedly side-effect-free “SAFE chemotherapy” can help cancer patients despite “insufficient science and evidence to support the conclusion that SAFE chemotherapy works”
• charged patients US $4,200 per cycle of SAFE chemotherapy for 5 to 24 cycles of this treatment
• prescribed dichloroacetate, a treatment usually used to treat metabolic disorders, to a six-year-old with brain cancer in 2017, even though it is unproven as a cancer treatment. The boy died in 2018

Khan, who has had years of postgraduate training in family medicine, founded and operated the Medicor Cancer Centres in Toronto.

Misinformation from Physicians for Informed Consent spotlighted. An investigation of Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) noted that the group:

• often features on its Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn feeds reasons to be scared of vaccines—especially for children—often highlighting selective portions of scientific research that contain vaccination risks despite having a stated mission “that doctors and the public are able to evaluate the data on infectious diseases and vaccines objectively, and voluntarily engage in informed decision-making about vaccination.”
• submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing against the implementation of vaccine mandates, claiming “government statements confirm there is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19,” ignoring evidence to the contrary
• includes 20 physicians, most of whom were not infectious disease specialists.

PIC’s leaders include:

• founder Shira Miller, M.D., a self-described “integrative medicine” doctor with a concierge practice in Los Angeles specializing in menopausal care
• founding director Paul Thomas, M.D., an Oregon-based pediatrician who was issued an emergency suspension of his medical license in 2021 by the state medical board that cited at least eight cases of alleged patient harm
• Jane Orient, M.D., internist and executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a group that opposes vaccine mandates and unsuccessfully sued the federal government for withholding its stockpile of hydroxychloroquine from COVID patients, despite research showing that the drug is ineffective
• Treasurer Douglas McKenzie, M.D., a plastic surgeon and self-described “ex-vaxxer”
• Tawny Buettner, RN, who, after California mandated vaccinations for healthcare workers, organized a protest outside of her workplace, Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego. After she was fired, she and 36 others sued the hospital, alleging that their requests for religious exemptions from the COVID-19 vaccine were improperly denied
• Kenneth Stoller, M.D., whose California medical license was revoked in 2019 for selling hundreds of baseless medical exemptions for use in evading school vaccine requirements

[Grant K. Is informed consent being used as a guise for spreading misinformation? Medpage Today, Feb 18, 2022]

Stoller is appealing his revocation. The status of his case will be discussed in next week’s Consumer Health Digest.

“Alternative” birth-related practices scrutinized. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has released a report intended to educate pediatric providers about emerging birth-related “alternative” practices that pose risks for infection. The topics include: (a) water immersion for labor and delivery; (b) vaginal seeding; (c) umbilical nonseverance (“lotus birth”); (d) placental ingestion; (e) refusing the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine, (f) refusing the use of erythromycin ointment used to prevent conjunctivitis in the first four weeks of life, and (g) delaying bathing. [Nolt D, and others. Committee on Infectious Diseases and Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Risks of infectious diseases in newborns exposed to alternative perinatal practices. Pediatrics, 149(2), Jan 24, 2022] Pediatrician Clay Jones, M.D., has authored a two-part commentary on the report [Jones C. The American Academy of Pediatrics weighs in on “alternative perinatal practices”: Part 1. Science-Based Medicine, Feb 4, 2022; Jones C. The American Academy of Pediatrics weighs in on “alternative perinatal practices”: Part 2. Science-Based Medicine, Feb 18, 2022] The AAP report did not mention the practice of refusing the newborn injection of vitamin K because it wasn’t relevant to its focus on preventing infectious disease. Jones concluded:

With the potential exception of refusing newborn eye prophylaxis, so-called alternative perinatal practices are not based on good science or backed by reasonable evidence of safety and benefit. In many cases, the opposite is in fact true, and they expose babies to the risk of potentially severe infectious diseases. Like vitamin K refusal, there are many more examples that could be discussed which do not involve increased risk of infection, and even some, such as the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative, that are not considered to be alternative at many hospitals. This is what happens when belief and bias trump science in . . . newborn medicine.

Comprehensive resource on dietary supplements updated. Thomas J. Wheeler, PhD, a retired associate professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Louisville School of Medicine, has updated the Dietary Supplements section of “A Scientific Look at Alternative Medicine.” Part 1 addresses general aspects including an overview, regulation and labeling, adverse effects, scientific critique, conventional nutrition, antioxidants, phytochemicals, and reviews and major trials of multiple supplements. Part 2 discusses 175 individual products, arranged in alphabetical order, that are marketed as supplements. The original compendium was part of a handout for an elective course that taught medical students to carefully consider the evidence regarding claims for “alternative” products and services.

Promotion of quackery by Prince Charles exposed. Dr. Edzard Ernst’s latest book, Charles, the Alternative Prince: An Unauthorized Biography, has received three favorable reviews:

• Russell P. Prince Charles and alternative medicine – A royal lost cause? Medscape, Feb 1, 2022
• Hall H. Prince Charles and alternative medicine. Science-Based Medicine, Feb 15, 2022
• Stea J. Prince Charles’ love affair with alternative medicine. Psychology Today, Feb 15, 2022

In a new essay, Dr. Ernst wrote:

The Prince has promoted an array of complementary therapies and diagnostic methods: aromatherapy, ayurveda, chiropractic, detoxification, Gerson therapy, herbal medicine, homoeopathy, iridology, marma therapy, massage, osteopathy, pulse diagnosis, reflexology, tongue diagnosis, traditional Chinese medicine, and yoga. . . . In general, the assumptions of one complementary therapy are not compatible with those of another. And for all of them, the evidence that they do more good than harm is either weak or negative.

[Ernst E. What Prince Charles tells us about complementary medicine. BMJ, 376; Feb 21, 2022]

2001 || 2002 || 2003 || 2004 || 2005 || 2006 || 2007
2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012 || 2013 || 2014
2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || 2021
2022 || 2023 || 2024

To subscribe, click here.