Tag Archives: quack

What Is A Cardiologist?

The skeptical cardiologist recently received a cease and desist letter from a lawyer representing Dr. Steven Gundry who felt I was defaming the goop doctor and supplement peddler by saying he was not a cardiologist.

The lawyer’s letter reminded me that many patients do not understand exactly what a cardiologist is and mistake us for cardiothoracic surgeons.

Here’s how the American College of Cardiology defines a cardiologist:

A cardiologist is a doctor with special training and skill in finding, treating and preventing diseases of the heart and blood vessels.

And here is part of my response to the lawyer which further clarifies the differences:

I understand your confusion with respect to the terminology of cardiologist versus cardiac or cardiothoracic surgeon. A surprising number of patients and readers think that I as a cardiologist perform “heart surgery.” Of course, actual surgery on the heart requiring “cracking open the chest” (which is what most laypeople consider “open heart surgery”) is always done by a cardiac surgeon not a cardiologist.

Like all other board-certified cardiologists I have gone through accredited training programs in internal medicine followed by a formal cardiology training program. There is no evidence that Dr. Gundry has done this.

Cardiologists, being extremely bright, entrepreneurial  and energetic, have expanded the toolkit they have for diagnosing and treating heart disease without having to engage in surgery. Thus,
cardiologists can insert  stents to open blocked coronary arteries, implant pacemakers and even replace valves all by accessing the cardiovascular system via its arteries and veins.

We don’t call this surgery because we aren’t surgeons and didn’t go through surgical training. We call these procedures. These are invasive procedures, to be fair, as we have invaded the vasculature and the interior of the heart and from these arterial and venous incursions complications may ensue.

A typical invasive procedure that cardiologists do looks like this:

This is a cardiologist  gaining access to the arterial system by inserting a catheter into the radial artery.

 

 

A typical open heart surgery performed by a cardiothoracic surgeon requires large incisions with direct visualization of the heart and looks like this:

 

 

 

 

 

Cardiologists And Cardiac Surgeons Undergo Totally Different Training

I began my response to Gundry’s lawyer by indicating my surprise that the lawyer felt Gundry was a cardiologist:

This comes as quite a surprise to me as my detailed research into Dr. Gundry’s background, training and credentials revealed absolutely no evidence that he is or ever was a cardiologist as we in the medical community define cardiologist. In fact, as you can see in his listing on CTSnet (which is a network of cardiothoracic surgeons) his post medical school training consisted of the following

University of Michigan Hospitals Surgery Internship (1977-78)
National Institutes of Health, Clinical Associate in Cardiac Surgery (1978-80)
University of Michigan Hospitals Surgery Residency (1980-83)
University of Michigan Hospitals Cardiothoracic Surgery Residency (1983-85)

He is trained as a cardiothoracic surgeon. Cardiothoracic surgeons go through surgical training programs which are completely different from the medical training programs that cardiologists like myself go through.

My description of him in this regards reads as follows:

“He is also widely described as a cardiologist but he is not, He is (or was) a cardiac surgeon (like, strangely enough, the celebrity prince of quackery, Dr. Oz)”

As you can see, my statement is perfectly accurate.

As far as him being a being elected a “Fellow of the American College of Cardiology” I can find no documentation of this and he is not currently listed as a member of the American College of Cardiology. But even if he was this does not make him a cardiologist because many cardiothoracic surgeons are members of the ACC.

Might I suggest you ask Dr. Gundry if he thinks he is a cardiologist. I’m pretty sure he would answer no.

What Is A Quack?

The lawyer then went on to accuse me of suggesting that Gundry is a quack because:

A “quack” is defined in common parlance as a lay person pretending to be a licensed physician. In other words, a fake doctor. The term “quack” connotes dishonesty, deception, fraudulent behavior, etc. Dr. Gundry has been a licensed physician and surgeon since at least 1989 (see Exhibit B attached), performed thousands of heart surgeries, and developed patented, life- saving medical technology. Your statements are not only factually incorrect, but are also irresponsible and intentionally misleading, resulting in harm to Dr. Gundry’s reputation and income.

To which I responded:

There seems to be an attempt here to suggest that by saying he is not a cardiologist I am calling him a quack. But as my previous information should have convinced you he is not a cardiologist but a cardiothoracic surgeon. He has done very good work as a cardiothoracic surgeon and I am happy to attest to that. I will be happy to add that information to his description in my up and coming posts on him.

At no point do I call him a quack in my posts. Clearly if I’m calling him a cardiothoracic surgeon I am acknowledging that he is a licensed physician and not, clearly, a fake doctor.

I have to admit my definition of quack has not been the common dictionary definition of “fake medical doctor.”  I have always considered those who engage in quackery to be quacks.

Quackery is defined at Quackwatch (the definitive website on the topic) as the promotion of unsubstantiated methods that lack a scientifically plausible rationale. 

And one can have a perfectly legitimate training as a medical doctor and engage in what most would consider quackery.

Even board-certified cardiologists like myself can engage in quackery.

Clearly there is a disconnect between the common definition of quack and that of quackery and in a  subsequent post I will delve further into the miasma of quackery, quacks and quacking,

Anatinely Yours,

-ACP

N.B. While researching this post I came across a fantastic article on Gwyneth Paltrow’s goop Doctors from David Gorski at Science-Based medicine. I highly recommend reading the entire piece (gwyneth-paltrow-and-goop-another-triumph-of-celebrity-pseudoscience-and-quackery) for your edification and pleasure.

Gorski’s paragraph on Gundry begins

  • Dr. Steven Gundry, a cardiothoracic surgeon very much like Dr. Mehmet Oz who, as he took incredible pains to lecture Dr. Gunter in his section of Goop’s hit piece on her, who once was a very respectable academic surgeon and, even better than Dr. Oz, served as Chairman of Cardiothoracic Surgery at Loma Linda University for a number of years, before leaving academia to undertake his private practice. (No wonder he and Dr. Oz seem to have an affinity for each other!) These days, he devotes his time to his practice, writing books, giving talks, and selling expensive supplements like Vital Reds (a bargain at $69.95 for per jar, discounted to $377.73 if you buy six jars) and Lectin Shield (a slightly more expensive bargain at $79.95 a jar, $419.70 for six), while bragging (as he did in his response to Dr. Gunter) about how so very, very hard he works and even—gasp!—accepts Medicare and Medicaid patients. His most recent book is The Plant Paradox: The Hidden Dangers in “Healthy Foods” That Cause Disease and Weight Gain. (Spoiler: That “hidden danger” is lectins.)

 

Featured image Photo by Ravi Singh on Unsplash

Why Stem Cell Injections For Arthritis Are Snake Oil

The skeptical cardiologist has had a few patients undergo stem cell injections for knee osteoarthritis. My sense based on a brief look at the literature in this area was that these stem cell clinics were unproven and over-priced. They typically cost 5 or 6 thousand dollars an injection, are minimally effective (no better than placebo injections), and are not covered by insurance.

I felt compelled to research the area more deeply when I discovered that Ozzie Smith, the Hall of Fame former Cardinal shortstop, had his name attached to a stem cell clinic in St. Louis and actively promoted it on their website. Ozzie, heretofore, my favorite Cardinal, auctioned off  his 13  Gold Gloves and 11 All-Star Game rings in 2012 and now, sadly, is lending his name to a shady area of pseudoscientific medicine.

In the course of my research I came across an incredibly detailed well-written and researched article posted on John Byrne, MD’s Skeptical Medicine website entitled Dubious Stem Cell Clinics.

After reading Byrne’s article I realized that there was no purpose in proceeding any further with my own research-this is what I would post if I had the requisite time, intelligence and skill-so I hope all will read the original.


Byrne notes that although  stem cell treatment is being investigated for all kinds of conditions

, as of 2018, the only legitimate stem cell treatments used in clinical practice are in bone marrow transplantation, burn treatment, bone grafting in orthopedics and corneal generation from limbal stem cells in ophthalmology. And of those, only bone marrow transplantation in cancer patients has a consensus from large scale clinical trials. There currently are no other legitimate treatments that are warranted for general use by current science. We simply are not at that level.

Despite Ozzie Smith’s ringing endorsements there is no evidence for  any benefit of orthopedic stem cell injections or PRP injections, another unproven treatment offered at the Ozzie Smith IMAC Regenerative Center

Experts in the field of stem cell therapy who are not out to make a quick buck are pretty unanimous in this assessment as Byrne notes:

George Daley, MD, PhD, a member of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute’s executive committee and past president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, added,

“we are seeing a growing number [of legitimate clinical trials] but all such uses are experimental … and there is great skepticism as to whether we have” the scientific knowledge and basis even to “predict that these will be effective.” “It may,” he said, “take decades before there is certainty.” “The only stem cell therapies that have been proven safe and effective,” he said, “are those constituting what is known as bone marrow transplantation for treatment of some cancers.”

However, such limitations do not prevent contemporary snake-oil salesmen from selling dubious treatments to desperate people by making unwarranted claims about stem cell therapies. “Stem Cell” is the new “Magnetic” and “Quantum” in the world of quackery.As with many scams, it is sold using “sciency” words and riding on the coattails of legitimate science.

“Like snake oil salesmen, clinics claiming astonishing curative results from stem cell treatments often do not have licensed physicians administrating the treatments, no scientific evidence supporting their work, and they rely on testimonials for advertising and promoting the value of their product.” 

Byrne goes on to give the history of stem cells, discuss the types of stem cells and why translation of their promise to clinical results has been slow.
In a fascinating section he compares the hijacking of “quantum” for use by pseudoscience peddlers to the hijacking of “stem cell.”

With the promise of what sounds like a magic technology, these clinics offer treatments for conditions across a wide range including orthopedics, pain management, neurologic problems, immune diseases, respiratory diseases, urologic, sexual, cosmetic, cardiovascular and dermatologic disorders. They advertise treatments for aging, diabetes, hair loss, muscular dystrophy, vision problems, gastrointestinal disorders, Alzheimer’s and autism.

Products are on sale now promoting magical-sounding claims of skin rejuvenation with the words “stem cell” attached to their names. Many products promote plant-based stem cell creams (yes, you read that correctly). One company’s advertisement claims, “(our) cutting edge technology brings an innovative anti-aging skin care line. Plant stem cells are the source of unlimited energy and the key to herbal growth and regeneration”.

I found this paragraph to be spot on in describing the techniques of the modern snake-oil salesman and worthy of noting:

Many sites use the language of pseudoscience to make specific-sounding claims, but in reality, are vacuous. Motor City StemCell claims that their products “Control the immune system”, “regulate inflammation” and “provide trophic support”. The operative words here are “control”, “regulate”, and “supports”. Skeptics recognize these as “weasel words”. They do not make specific claims for which the claimants may be held to account. Other weasel words include “boosts” and “enhances”.

When such words are used, often they are accompanied by the Quack Miranda Warning:

“These statement(s) have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.” 
The tactics of selling snake oil have become sophisticated over the years, but the overall strategy has remained the same. Find vulnerable customers (“marks”); make bold claims of a “cure for everything”; claim 100% safety and efficacy; use sciency-sounding technobabble; point to legitimate research as if it supports your claims; promote testimonials from happy customers; charge high fees for unproven or implausible
products and services; attack your critics as being closed minded, or in the pocket of “Big Pharma”; repeat.
Based on my  own research into this area  I totally agree with Byrne’s conclusion
Stem Cell research is a promising field. There may be a day in the future in which there are many disorders that can be effectively and safely treated with stem cell therapy. That day is not here yet.

 

However, we currently have many clinics across the world offering treatments under the guise of “Stem Cell Therapy”. Their claims go well beyond the current science and are therefore not justified. These treatments are not regulated or endorsed by agencies such as the FDA. The consumer will pay large sums of money — tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars — to receive unproven, unregulated “treatments” at their own expense, often under the guise of a “clinical trial”. No legitimate research organization charges participants to participate in clinical trials.

These treatments have unknown risks and unproven benefits. They are marketed with fancy websites, testimonials and expensive dinner seminars by providers — some of whom are actual MD’s or DO’s and should know better — with no regard to scientific standards or ethics. They will use scientific-style jargon and promise miraculous cures for just about anything that ails you. This is a scam.


Yes, indeed this is a scam. And we will have to add some of these attributes to my #1 red flag of quackery.
Weasel words and the Quack Miranda Statement are definitely highly specific markers for quack web health sites.
Protrophicly Yours,
-ACP

Quackery Promotion By Mainstream Media: Part I, Reader’s Digest and Naturopathy

As the skeptical cardiologist surveys the heart health information available to his patients and the lay public, he sees two broad categories of misinformation.

First we have the quacks and snake oil salesman. These are primarily characterized by a goal of selling more of their useless stuff online.

I’ve described this as the #1 red flag of quackery. Usually I’m inspired to investigate these charlatans because a patient asks me about one of their useless supplements.

The second category is more insidious: the magazine or internet news site seems to have as its legitimate goal, promoting the health of its readers. There is no clear connection to a product.

Web MD, which I wrote about here, is an example of this second type.  Hard copy versions of these types of media frequently make it into doctor’s waiting rooms: not because doctor’s have read and approved what is in them. These companies send their useless and misleading magazines for free to doctor’s offices, and the staff believe it to be legitimate.

How does glaringly inaccurate and often dangerous information get into media that ostensibly has as its goal promoting its readers health? Most likely, it is a result of media’s need  to constantly produce new and interesting ways for readers to improve their health.

Clearly, readers will not continue subscribing, clicking and reading such sources of information if there isn’t something new and exciting that might prolong their lives: gimmicks, miracles cures, and “natural” remedies are more alluring than the well-known advice to exercise more, watch your weight, stop smoking and get a good night’s sleep.

Reader’s Digest and Stealth Quackery

A patient recently brought in a printout of Reader’s Digest’s “40 things cardiologists do to protect their heart” which is typical of the second category.

Reader’s Digest was a staple of my childhood. My parents subscribed to it consistently and I would read parts of it. It was small and enticing. Allegedly its articles were crafted so that they could be read in their entirety during a session in the bathroom.

To this day it has a wide circulation. Per Wikipedia”

The magazine was founded in 1920, by DeWitt Wallace and Lila Bell Wallace. For many years, Reader’s Digest was the best-selling consumer magazine in the United States; it lost the distinction in 2009 to Better Homes and Gardens. According to Mediamark Research (2006), Reader’s Digest reaches more readers with household incomes of $100,000+ than Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Inc. combined.[2]

Global editions of Reader’s Digest reach an additional 40 million people in more than 70 countries, via 49 editions in 21 languages. The periodical has a global circulation of 10.5 million, making it the largest paid circulation magazine in the world.

Reader’s Digest used to run a recurring educational feature on the various body parts and organs of Joe and Jane which intrigued me.

Here’s the first paragraph of “I am Joe’s heart:”

I am certainly no beauty. I weigh 340 grams, am red-brown in color and have an unimpressive shape. I am the dedicated slave of Joe. I am Joe’s heart.

The health information in this series was generally accurate but the presentation lacks the kind of sizzle that apparently attracts today’s readers.

The article my patient brought to my attention is typical of the mix of good and bad information and fluff that mainstream media can produce to attract followers:

Not So Bad But Not Clearly True Medical Advice

#1. I keep a gratitude journal. An internist “at NYU” is quoted as saying: “Studies have recently shown that expressing gratitude may have a significant positive impact on heart health.”

Fact Check: following the links provided provides no evidence to support this claim.

#2  I get 8 hours of sleep a night, every night.  This cardiologist seems to have been misquoted, because her comment is actually “getting a good night sleep is essential. I make a point of getting seven to eight hours of sleep every night…Poor sleep is linked to higher blood pressure.”

Fact Check. One review noted that:

Too little or too much sleep are associated with adverse health outcomes, including total mortality, type 2 diabetes, hypertensionand respiratory disorders, obesity in both children and adults, and poor self-rated health.

Another broke down mortality according to number of hours of sleep.

A J-shaped association between sleep duration and all-cause mortality was present: compared with 7 h of sleep (reference for 24-h sleep duration), both shortened and prolonged sleep durations were associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (4 h: relative risk [RR] = 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02–1.07; 5 h: RR = 1.06; 95% CI = 1.03–1.09; 6 h: RR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.03–1.06; 8 h: RR = 1.03; 95% CI = 1.02–1.05; 9 h: RR = 1.13; 95% CI = 1.10–1.16; 10 h: RR = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.22–1.28; 11 h: RR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.33–1.44; n = 29; P < 0.01 for non-linear test)

Thus, in comparison to those who sleep 7 hours, those who sleep 5 hours have a 5% increase in mortality and those who sleep 11 hours have a 38% increase in mortality.

These data are based entirely on observational studies so it is impossible to know if the shortened sleep is responsible for the increased mortality or if some other (confounding) factor is causing both.

My advice: Some people do fine with 6 hours and 45 minutes of sleep. Some require 8 hours 15 minutes for optimal function. Rather than obsessing about getting a specific amount of sleep time, it makes more sense to find our through your own careful observations what sleep time works best for you and adjust your schedule and night time patterns accordingly.

#3. I do CrossFit.

Fact Check. There is nothing to support CrossFit as more heart healthy than regular aerobic exercise (which the vast majority of cardiologists recommend and perform).

#4. I meditate. “Negative thoughts and feelings of sadness can be detrimental to the heart. Stress can cause catecholamine release that can lead to heart failure and heart attacks.”

Fact Check. There is a general consensus that stress has adverse consequences for the cardiovascular system. Evidence of meditation improving cardiovascular outcomes is very weak.

A recent review

Participation in meditation practices has been shown to reduce depression, anxiety, and negative mood and thus may have an indirect positive effect on CV health and well-being. This possibility has led the American Heart Association to classify TM as a class IIb, level of evidence B alternative approach to lowering BP.32

Non randomized, non blinded studies with small numbers of participants have suggested a reduction in CV death in those performing regular TM.

However, we need better and larger studies before concluding there is a definite benefit compared to optimal medical therapy.

Thus far, the recommendations have been pretty mundane: exercise, stress reduction and a good night’s sleep is good advice for all, thus boring.

Seriously Bad Advice From Quacks Mixed In With Reasonable Advice

In order to keep reader’s interest (and reach 45 things) Reader’s Digest is going to need to add seriously bad advice.

My patient had circled #34. “I mix magnesium powder into my water. If sufficient magnesium is present in the body, cholesterol will not be produced in excess.”

This bizarre and totally unsubstantiated practice was recommended by Carolyn Dean MD, ND.

What do we know about Dr. Dean?

-She was declared unfit to practice medicine and her registration revoked by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in 1995. From quackwatch.org :

  • After being notified in 1993 that a disciplinary hearing would be held, Dean relocated to New York and did not contest the charges against her.
  • Dean had used unscientific methods of testing such as hair analysis, Vega and Interro testing, iridology and reflexology as well as treatment not medically indicated and of unproven value, such as homeopathy, colonic irrigations, coffee enemas, and rotation diets.

-The initials after her name (ND, doctor of naturopathy) should be considered the second red flag of quackery. See quackwatch.org (here) and rational wiki (here) and the confessions of a former naturopath  (here ) for discussions of naturopathy. As noted at science-based medicine:

Naturopathy is a cornucopia of almost every quackery you can think of. Be it homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurvedic medicine, applied kinesiology, anthroposophical medicine, reflexology, craniosacral therapy, Bowen Technique, and pretty much any other form of unscientific or prescientific medicine that you can imagine, it’s hard to think of a single form of pseudoscientific medicine and quackery that naturopathy doesn’t embrace or at least tolerate.

-She has a website (Dr. Carolyn Dean, MD,ND, The Doctor of The Future) where she incessantly promotes magnesium as the cure for all ills.

-She has written a book called “The Magnesium Miracle” (hmm. wonder what that’s about).

-She sells her own (really special!) type of magnesium (see red flag #1 of quackery).

-She writes for the Huffington Post (I’m considering making this a red flag of quackery).

-She is on the medical advisory board of the Nutritional Magnesium Association (an organization devoted to hyping magnesium as the cure for all ills and featuring all manner of magnesium quacks).

Prevention Magazine 

Reader’s Digest is not alone in allowing the advice of pseudoscience practitioners to stand side by side with legitimate sources.

For example, Prevention Magazine in its August 2017 issue highlights “35 All-Time Favorite Natural Remedies” with the subheading

“Go ahead, try them at home: Experts swear by these nondrug cures for back pain, nausea, hot flashes, and other common ailments.”

Who are these “experts”? Let the reader beware because the first quote comes from “Amy Rothenberg, past president of the Massachusetts Society of Naturopathic Doctors.”

Finding The Truth

It’s getting harder and harder for the lay public to sort out real from fake health stories and advice.

When seemingly legitimate news media and widely followed sources like Reader’s Digest and Prevention Magazine  either consciously or inadvertently promote quackery, the truth becomes even more illusive.

Readers should avoid any source of information which

  1. Profits from selling vitamins and supplements.
  2. Utilizes or promotes  naturopaths or other obvious quacks as experts in health advice.

IamJoesfootingly Yours,

-ACP

How To Spot a Quack Health Site: Red Flag #1, Primary Goal Is Selling Supplements

During the process of compiling the Cardiology Quackery Hall of Shame, the skeptical cardiologist has recognized that the #1 red flag of quackery is the constant promotion of useless supplements.

Such supplements typically:

-consist of “natural” ingredients

-are a proprietary blend of ingredients or a uniquely prepared single ingredient, and are only available through the quack

-have thousands of individuals who have had dramatic improvement on the supplement and enthusiastically record their testimonial to its power

-have no scientific support of efficacy or safety

-despite the lack of scientific data, the quack is able to list a series of seemingly valid supportive “studies”

-aren’t checked by the FDA

-apparently cure everything from heart disease to lassitude

I received an email today from a reader complimenting me on my post on the lack of science behind Dr. Esselstyn’s plant-based diet. The writer thought I would be interested in the work of a  Dr. Gundry.

I found on Dr. Gundry’s website an immediate and aggressive attempt to sell lots of supplements with features similar to what I describe above.

Dr. Gundry’s bio states “I left my former position at California’s Loma Linda University Medical Center, and founded The Center for Restorative Medicine. I have spent the last 14 years studying the human microbiome – and developing the principles of Holobiotics that have since changed the lives of countless men and women.”

Need I mention that “holobiotics” is (?are) not real.

Bonohibotically Yours,

-ACP

After writing this, I googled “red flag of quackery” images in the foolish hope that I might find a useable image. Lo and behold the image I featured in this post turned up courtesy of sci-ence.org. Here it is in all its glory, courtesy of Maki

2012-01-09-redflags2-682x1024