Tag Archives: Big Pharma

New evidence gives supporters of chiropractic a headache

The Conversation

Michael Vagg, Deakin University

A paper was published and much discussed online recently, which demonstrates all the problems that I – and other critics – have with the way research is done and interpreted in the world of chiropractic.

The study looked at the effect of chiropractic neck manipulation on people who have migraines.

On the face of it, the article concerned looks like a pretty fair and well conducted study. Despite the methodological difficulties of randomisation and blinding of participants with manual therapies, a genuine effort was made as part of the study design to allow for this.

The trial was a three-armed study comparing chiropractic spinal manipulation (CMST) with a sham manual therapy and a group who continued with their usual care.

Although the deliverers of the manual therapy would know what they were providing, a level of blinding to treatment allocation was possible. It was refreshing to see as well that they had checked to confirm that the blinding of subjects was maintained throughout the study. This is extremely important in assessing the validity of a study, and as the authors point out

The importance of our successful blinding is emphasized by the fact that all previous manual-therapy RCTs on headache lack placebo._

The outcome measures chosen were reasonably fair and representative of the group studied. The statistical analysis was conventional enough. They had performed power calculations using a reasonable comparator, which again increases confidence in the validity of the results and shows they were taking the methodology seriously.

The robustness of the methodology is likely the reason it was included in the European Journal of Neurology – a solid, second-tier journal with a credible reputation.

I would not quibble with the summary of their conclusion, published in the paper’s abstract, that said:

It is possible to conduct a manual-therapy RCT with concealed placebo. The effect of CSMT observed in our study is probably due to a placebo response.

This is the correct scientific interpretation of the data. If it was a drug trial, we would conclude there was no pharmacologically relevant effect within the parameters shown, and it would be considered a negative study.

How very different then is the analysis of the same study by chiropractors. The Chiropractors’ Association of Australia (CAA) mentioned it in their press release titled saying “chiropractors welcome latest evidence of headaches”. The relevant quote is:

A paper published in the European Journal of Neurology in September 2016 was the latest in a series of papers to confirm the effectiveness of chiropractic health care in treating people with migraines. The study of 104 people in Norway found that Migraine symptoms were substantially reduced as a result of chiropractic treatment.

Critical reporting of this study, such as found on the website of the American Council on Science and Health, throws up some interesting conversations and interpretations in the comments section.

While I don’t generally read online comment sections (apart from this column naturally) it’s worth making the effort in this particular case. The author of that piece has made the same basic epidemiological arguments as I have above, and come to the correct conclusion that it is a negative study.

One of the commenters accuses the author of deliberate bias and makes the following piquant observation:

To show how much spin this “article” has the title could have been: Have a Migraine? Skip the meds, sham and Gonstead CSMT both effective. more than medical care.

This commenter appears to be making the same error of interpretation as the CAA. The point of a three-armed study is to differentiate between the effect of any intervention in the study (due to placebo responses) and the improvement due to simply being observed in an artificial situation (known as the Hawthorne effect).

If a treatment is genuinely efficacious, one expects to see three divergent curves with: a minor improvement in the no-intervention group; a larger improvement in the sham intervention group; and a clearly larger improvement in the true intervention group.

A treatment which lacks effectiveness will produce results in which the two intervention groups are indistinguishable. That is exactly what this study returned. Observe the graphs for yourself.

The graphs that tell the story. European Journal of Neurology

Note carefully that the authors of the original study are careful to claim the only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is feasible to conduct a manual therapy study in a single-blinded fashion.

They made no claims about the efficacy of the intervention apart from the fact it was equivalent to sham, and in fact are explicit about the fact they believe the treatment effects were all placebo. Outright claiming the opposite is a new peak of disingenuousness for supporters of chiropractic.

Another characteristic of treatments which do not have efficacy is that the more rigorous the study, the more the claimed effect disappears into the statistical noise. To be definitive about a lack of efficacy, a much larger study would be needed.

The results above would not inspire me to spend a couple of million dollars on a study with 200 people in every arm. Results like this over the years have killed off hundreds of medications which were being developed by Big Pharma.

Academic chiropractors are in the invidious position of trying to establish that an ideologically-based treatment system has a scientific basis. They should be careful what they wish for when conducting rigorous studies, as they may find their fondest beliefs being dashed on the rocks of reality.

The ConversationMichael Vagg, Clinical Senior Lecturer at Deakin University School of Medicine & Pain Specialist, Deakin University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. (Reblogged by permission). Read the original article.

Leave a comment

Filed under Reblogs

The David and Goliath Fallacy

by Tim Harding

The biblical parable of David and the Goliath is taught to many children throughout the Western world and the Middle East.  Goliath was a huge armoured and weapon-carrying champion, who was defeated by a small shepherd boy using only a slingshot and stone.  This parable is often cited to show how an underdog with ‘right on his side’ can defeat much a more powerful opponent.

Andrea_del_Castagno_002

In some cases, this parable is extended into a logical fallacy that attempts to paint large and powerful organisations as bad or wrong because they are large and powerful.  For example, anti-science advocates often disparagingly refer to ‘Big Pharma’, implying that the pharmaceutical industry is bad, at least in part, because it is big.  Never mind that, in terms of retail sales dollars, the placebo industry (or so-called ‘alternative medicine’) is of a similar order of magnitude these days.  Similar disparagements are made against medical science, the medical profession and even government agencies on the grounds of their size and influence.

The David and Goliath Fallacy takes roughly the following form:

   Premise 1: There is a conflict between two organisations A and B.

   Premise 2: A is much larger and more powerful than B.

   Conclusion: Therefore, A is bad or wrong, compared to B which is good or right.

Like all logical fallacies, this argument is invalid because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.  Small organisations can be bad and/or wrong; and large organisations can be good and/or right. In some ways, the David and Goliath Fallacy can be viewed as a perverse over-correction of the aphorism ‘Might Makes Right’.

One of the consequences of this fallacy is that claiming underdog status against a more powerful ‘Goliath’ can give moral licence to poor behaviour during conflicts, to create a ‘more even contest’.  For example, small organisations like the so-called Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network frequently make false or unsubstantiated claims, with the lame excuse that they do not have the resources to back up their claims with evidence. The David and Goliath Fallacy has been used during ideological debates in attempts to justify intellectual property theft and even terrorism.

If you find the information on this blog useful, you might like to consider supporting us.

Make a Donation Button

Leave a comment

Filed under Logical fallacies

The Scientific Conspiracy Fallacy

by Tim Harding

The 2013 National Australian Skeptics Convention was held from 22 to 24 November in Canberra.  The theme was Science, Skepticism and Conspiracy Theories.  We understand the connection between science and skepticism, but where do conspiracy theories fit in?

You may have noticed that irrational beliefs such as anti-vaccination, anti-fluoridation, anti-GM foods and extra-terrestrial visitations are often associated with conspiracy theories allegedly involving scientists.

The late Christopher Hitchens described conspiracy theories as “the exhaust fumes of democracy” – the unavoidable result of a large amount of information circulating among a large number of people.  Conspiracy theories appear to make sense of a world that is otherwise confusing.[1]  They do so in an appealingly simple way – by dividing the world into bad guys versus good guys. They also enable people to believe whatever they want to believe, without the bothersome burden of conclusive evidence.

The Scientific Conspiracy Fallacy takes roughly the following form:

   Premise 1: I hold a certain belief.

   Premise 2: The scientific evidence is inconsistent with my belief.

   Conclusion: Therefore, the scientists are conspiring with the Big Bad Government/CIA/NASA/Big Pharma (choose whichever is convenient) to fake the evidence and undermine my belief.

It is a tall order to argue that the whole of science is genuinely mistaken. That is a debate that even the conspiracy theorists know they probably can’t win. So the most convenient explanation for the inconsistency is that scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to fake the evidence in specific cases.

In informal logic, many fallacies can be demonstrated by citing a counter-example.  In this case, a possible alternative explanation for the inconsistency is simply that the scientific evidence is right and the conspiracy theorist’s belief is wrong.  The notion that scientists are regularly engaged in conspiracies is implausible, because amongst other things, published scientific papers are required to explain the experimental methods used so that the experiments can be repeated and tested by anybody.  And as Prof. Lawrence Krauss has said, “scientists become famous by proving their colleagues wrong”.[2]

Endnotes 

[1] Van der Linden (2013) Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories.  Scientific American 18 August, 2013. 

[2] ABC1 TV program ‘Q&A – A Show About Nothing ‘ Transcript 18 February, 2013. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3687812.htm

If you find the information on this blog useful, you might like to consider supporting us.

Make a Donation Button

8 Comments

Filed under Logical fallacies