Reading the Charlotte Sun Newspaper

Alert readers will notice several key facts missing or misrepresented in this morning’s “medical news” story, New Technology for Aching Backs, featured in Feeling Fit.

Right off the bat, the technology is not new. If the reporter had researched the field instead of taking her source’s word for it, she would have discovered two things: First, the spine-stretching table promoted by the local chiropractor is a Canadian knock-off of a several prior models — around since the 1980’s — that do essentially the same thing, and secondly, it’s simply traction, a long-used technique well known to temporarily relieve some types of back pain.

But the reporter’s failures go deeper than that.

The reporter says patients sign up for daily, 30-minute treatments. A thorough, professional journalist would have informed readers how many 30-minute, daily treatments are usually prescribed. Two? Twenty? Two hundred? The chiropractic literature typically mentions between 10 and 20. So what happens if the patient misses one session or the weekend intervenes?

On the same note, the reporter fails to report how much each treatment costs and whether insurance or Medicare will pay. The literature mentions a typical $250 per treatment bill. Multiply that by 10 or 20 treatments, and most readers would seriously weigh the benefit against the $5,000 cost for what most studies report is temporary relief, at best.

The reporter fails to mention FDA’s limited approval for the device. It is approved as traction that may “relieve” certain types of back pain. However, it is illegal to claim it can correct herniated (bulging) discs. The chiropractor, Stephen Stokes, seems to makes this claim in the news story when the reporter writes: “In the past, treatment for bulging discs or back pain was surgery of manual manipulation of the back.” (And, just because a treatment was used “in the past” doesn’t mean it’s a poor choice. What’s wrong with either? The reporter doesn’t say. )

The reporter fails to report how the local chiropractor diagnoses a “weakened annulus” before beginning treatment. This condition is internal and non-visible so there must be some use of x-rays, MRI scans or other (expensive) diagnostic methods not reported.

The reporter fails to inform readers about what happens when the patient stands up. The decompression or stretching that occurs on the horizontal table is surely compromised when a several-hundred-pound person stands and gravity takes over. Muscles are not strengthened to hold the discs apart in this treatment. It seems reasonable to ask the chiropractor how his device counters gravity when the patient returns to a normal, standing position. How long does the perceived benefit last? The reporter never asks whether the “cure” is permanent or temporary.

The reporter cites an article published a decade ago in a publication called the Journal of Neurological Research. Old Word Wolf hope she actually read the article because she attributes none of the information she “reports” to anyone but herself. Is this a peer-reviewed journal? Why cite a 10-year-old study? Is there nothing newer? How large is the study? How long did the benefits last?

OWW’s reading finds the improvements reported were “self reported” by patients, using self-assessed pain scales that range from 1 to 3 in some groups and 1 to 5 in others. The article mentions neither an objective measurement of intra-disc pressure nor a range-of-movement measurement — or any other way that the researchers evaluated the result apart from patient’s self-reporting. Most significantly, the reporter also fails to inform readers, based on the study’s numbers, that about one in four patients reported being not helped by the treatment.

More recently, Dwayne M. Daniel, a researcher at Parker Chiropractic College’s Parker Research Institute noted in a 2007 paper published in a chiropractic journal: “There is very limited evidence in the scientific literature to support the effectiveness of non-surgical spinal decompression therapy. This intervention has never been compared to exercise, spinal manipulation, standard medical care or other less expensive conservative treatment options which have an ample body of research demonstrating efficacy. Considering the cost-benefit relationship, many better researched and less expensive treatment options are available to the clinician.” (D.M. Daniel, “Non-surgical spinal decompression therapy: Does the scientific literature support efficacy claims made in the advertising media?” Chiropractic and Osteopathy, Vol 15, No. 7, May 18, 2007) Full text available at: http://www.chirobase.org/06DD/vaxd/c&o.html

The reporter fails to inform readers if certain conditions preclude using the device — osteoporosis? scoliosis? Do real M.D. specialists, say orthopaedic surgeons, use or make referrals to the chiropractor’s device? Does an orthopedic surgeon use the device in his practice? If not, why not?

OWW isn’t the only critic to cast a skeptical eye on the device.

And finally, a real reporter would have noted Stokes cannot be a “medical director” if he has no medical schooling; his self-ascribed title is misleading. It would be helpful if the reporter would inform readers what school the chiropractor actually attended.

Yes, OWW is being mean again. But medical reporting is a specialized area that bears a special responsibility to the reader. With this article, the reporter abrogates that responsibility in the most obvious ways – lazy, naïve reporting based on a single, biased source who has something to sell to a particularly desperate segment of the medical market.

Oh, and did we note? Stokes is a regular, full-page, full-color advertiser with the reporter’s employer.

Alert readers will notice several key facts missing or misrepresented in this morning’s “medical news” story, New Technology for Aching Backs, featured in Feeling Fit.

Right off the bat, the technology is not new. If the reporter had researched the field instead of taking her source’s word for it, she would have discovered two things: First, the spine-stretching table promoted by the local chiropractor is a Canadian knock-off of a several prior models — around since the 1980’s — that do essentially the same thing, and secondly, it’s simply traction, a long-used technique well known to temporarily relieve some types of back pain.

But the reporter’s failures go deeper than that.

The reporter says patients sign up for daily, 30-minute treatments. A thorough, professional journalist would have informed readers how many 30-minute, daily treatments are usually prescribed. Two? Twenty? Two hundred? The chiropractic literature typically mentions between 10 and 20. So what happens if the patient misses one session or the weekend intervenes?

On the same note, the reporter fails to report how much each treatment costs and whether insurance or Medicare will pay. The literature mentions a typical $250 per treatment bill. Multiply that by 10 or 20 treatments, and most readers would seriously weigh the benefit against the $5,000 cost for what most studies report is temporary relief, at best.

The reporter fails to mention FDA’s limited approval for the device. It is approved as traction that may “relieve” certain types of back pain. However, it is illegal to claim it can correct herniated (bulging) discs. The chiropractor, Stephen Stokes, seems to makes this claim in the news story when the reporter writes: “In the past, treatment for bulging discs or back pain was surgery of manual manipulation of the back.” (And, just because a treatment was used “in the past” doesn’t mean it’s a poor choice. What’s wrong with either? The reporter doesn’t say. )

The reporter fails to report how the local chiropractor diagnoses a “weakened annulus” before beginning treatment. This condition is internal and non-visible so there must be some use of x-rays, MRI scans or other (expensive) diagnostic methods not reported.

The reporter fails to inform readers about what happens when the patient stands up. The decompression or stretching that occurs on the horizontal table is surely compromised when a several-hundred-pound person stands and gravity takes over. Muscles are not strengthened to hold the discs apart in this treatment. It seems reasonable to ask the chiropractor how his device counters gravity when the patient returns to a normal, standing position. How long does the perceived benefit last? The reporter never asks whether the “cure” is permanent or temporary.

The reporter cites an article published a decade ago in a publication called the Journal of Neurological Research. Old Word Wolf hope she actually read the article because she attributes none of the information she “reports” to anyone but herself. Is this a peer-reviewed journal? Why cite a 10-year-old study? Is there nothing newer? How large is the study? How long did the benefits last?

OWW’s reading finds the improvements reported were “self reported” by patients, using self-assessed pain scales that range from 1 to 3 in some groups and 1 to 5 in others. The article mentions neither an objective measurement of intra-disc pressure nor a range-of-movement measurement — or any other way that the researchers evaluated the result apart from patient’s self-reporting. Most significantly, the reporter also fails to inform readers, based on the study’s numbers, that about one in four patients reported being not helped by the treatment.

More recently, Dwayne M. Daniel, a researcher at Parker Chiropractic College’s Parker Research Institute noted in a 2007 paper published in a chiropractic journal: “There is very limited evidence in the scientific literature to support the effectiveness of non-surgical spinal decompression therapy. This intervention has never been compared to exercise, spinal manipulation, standard medical care or other less expensive conservative treatment options which have an ample body of research demonstrating efficacy. Considering the cost-benefit relationship, many better researched and less expensive treatment options are available to the clinician.” (D.M. Daniel, “Non-surgical spinal decompression therapy: Does the scientific literature support efficacy claims made in the advertising media?” Chiropractic and Osteopathy, Vol 15, No. 7, May 18, 2007) Full text available at: http://www.chirobase.org/06DD/vaxd/c&o.html

The reporter fails to inform readers if certain conditions preclude using the device — osteoporosis? scoliosis? Do real M.D. specialists, say orthopaedic surgeons, use or make referrals to the chiropractor’s device? Does an orthopedic surgeon use the device in his practice? If not, why not?

OWW isn’t the only critic to cast a skeptical eye on the device.

And finally, a real reporter would have noted Stokes cannot be a “medical director” if he has no medical schooling; his self-ascribed title is misleading. It would be helpful if the reporter would inform readers what school the chiropractor actually attended.

Yes, OWW is being mean again. But medical reporting is a specialized area that bears a special responsibility to the reader. With this article, the reporter abrogates that responsibility in the most obvious ways – lazy, naïve reporting based on a single, biased source who has something to sell to a particularly desperate segment of the medical market.

Oh, and did we note? Stokes is a regular, full-page, full-color advertiser with the reporter’s employer.

The ability to copy a person’s name accurately from story to headline is not a required job skill for Web news editors at The Charlotte Sun. Brittany’s father gains financial control until Valentine’s Day. The story’s first word “Britney.” The “editor” manages to introduce three errors — count ‘em — into a name that has been in the news since the late 20th century. Update: The editor writes me that he’s fixed it.

Further, the story uses the appropriate AP style, referring to the entertainer by her last name. The Charlotte Sun “editor” takes it upon himself to infantalize a woman by using her first name in the headline.

“Feeling Fit” Tab Features Dr. Beth Quack:
“Dr. Beth” Claims Acupuncture Works Better Than Diets for Weight Loss

Charlotte Sun tab Editor Dawn Krebs has cultivated a reputation for knowing less than most about general science, general personal health and general critical thinking. So it’s no surprise to find she lets Elizabeth Adams style herself as “Dr.” and “Dr. Beth” in the pages of her publication. She even tucks “Dr. Beth’s” item under the headline: Ask the Experts: Local medical professionals answer health-related questions in last Sunday’s edition. If I were a real doctor buying ads in Kreb’s paper, I’d vigorously protest classifying “Dr. Beth” as a medical professional.

Elizabeth “Beth” Adams has a Florida acupuncture license. Not content with a semi-legitimate credential, she claims to be a “doctor of oriental medicine” and a “physician.” There’s no national standard, school or certifying agency for what probably amounts to a proprietary review of herbals, aromas and the ground horns of endangered species. This “doctor” is, essentially, prescribing without a license. Here’s her description of weight loss:

“Acupuncture for weight loss is a very different approach from the modern American diet. It is about balancing the body’s energy. A body that is in balance is well and does not crave or store foods it does not need. With acupuncture, the body stops fighting itself, and you will no longer need “will power” to not overeat or eat the wrong foods. Your body simply begins to crave only what is best for you, and only what you need. It becomes very easy not to eat, for example, the chocolate cake if you simply do not want the chocolate cake. Results are slower with acupuncture than with the crash or starvation diets, but the shift in energy is often permanent, so the weight taken off never returns.”

Adams’ first, ungrammatical sentence establishes a non-sequitur as her opening pitch. Yes, acupuncture is “different” than the “modern American diet.” One is needles and the other is food. But more critically, what is this “modern American diet?” Surely it’s the one my family (we’re pretty darn modern and 100 percent American) eats: lots of leafy veggies, fruits, nuts and fish. Surely no other civilization in the history of the world has had access to the extensive, fresh, healthy varieties of the modern American diet that are offered in every grocery in every town.

Her second sentence blasts off from the launch pad of illogic into the rarified air of quackery. What kind of body energy requires balancing? Is this electrical, solar or nuclear energy? Perhaps a magnetic force of some kind? How does one balance energy? By standing on one foot or by hovering on a balance scale? The good “doctor” doesn’t say.

What evidence does “Dr. Beth” have for claiming this mysteriously balanced body won’t crave or store foods “it does not need?” Surely “Dr. Beth” and Editor Krebs learned about human metabolism in high school biology, or if not there, surely their grown-up reading and interest in the field would yield some basic, evidence-based understanding of the process. The body, “balanced energy” or not, is quite efficient at storing fats for future use, from everything I’ve read.

So, what is the acupuncture’s mechanism that makes the body “stop fighting” itself? What’s the definition of “fighting itself?” Cause and effect, doctor; show us the cause and effect you claim.

I’m willing to swallow that “results are slower with acupuncture,” because (a) there’s no demonstrable effect from acupuncture at all on anyone’s weight and (b) it will take a long time and many $essions with the Doctor of Oriental Medicine before the naïve client figures that out.

Shame on you, Editor Krebs and your tacit endorsement of this phony “acupuncture physician.”

Sunday is Quack Day at America’s Best Community Daily. While the believers are in church, I’m home reading the “Health and Fitness” tab, an unending source of humor, better than the “funny papers” of my youth.

Today, for example, “Ask the Experts: Local medical professionals answer health-related questions and give straight answers on various subjects” contains this bit of hilarity:

“Q: I have heard a lot about internal cleansing, but why is this important? A: Internal cleansing is a common term used to describe the act of process of [sic] ridding the body of toxic substances that enter or are produced by the body. Harmful toxins existing in the body are of two types, those produced by external or environmental sources such as factories, industrial plants or mold. These are called exogenous toxins. The other — called endogenous toxins – is caused by the body during its various processes. Accumulated toxins existing in the body are a serious problem. The results of numerous studies indicate that a number of toxic substances are responsible for many of the diseases prevalent today. Because of the vast amounts of toxins, the body is unable to naturally cleans itself completely. Internal cleansing assists the body with the removal of toxins. The process uses special herbs, foods and a number of other therapies and procedures.”

This little bit of Q&A compiled by De Soto Sun Editor Dawn Krebs (I don’t believe for one moment a reader wrote in with this question), concludes with the note: “Gregory N. Whyte is a health education specialist and holistic health practitioner. He writes and lectures on topics and areas within the spectrum of fitness, holistic health and natural healing, and provides consulting counseling and training services.”

Now, no one with an ounce of sense would read Whyte’s Quack Day contribution without asking: what toxins? what studies? what prevalent diseases? what cleansing assists? what special herbs? what therapies? and what procedures?

But, silly me, I thought newspaper editors were supposed to ask these questions. After all “what” is about 20 percent of the five W’s, right?

Here’s what the editor doesn’t report about her featured “medical professional:”

Gregory N. Whyte makes no claim to having a medical degree, although he says he earned a bachelor’s degree in phys ed from Hunter College in New York. Neither does he have — or claim to have — any health-related license in the state of Florida.

He does claim to be author of a book he has for sale: “Mold Management and Tutorial.” The book is a self-published book and costs $34.95. It is available only at his his Web site, “Advanced Health and Safety I.T.D. Inspection Testing Design.” The Web site also sells home inspections for “air quality and other pollutants.” Whyte claims to identify “Environmental Disharmony” through poor interior design and decor.

A five-minute Internet search turns up Militant Islam Monitor, a Web site that lists Islamic activists and credits Whyte as “creator of Tiririka survival and development system.” That site’s broken link to Whyte’s bio is available in the Wayback Machine. It’s a November 2005 page for The Truth Establishment Institute, listing a Chicago post office box address and several still-active links to stories about Louis Farrakhan and a mission statement about a “justified” society.

On his own bio page, Whyte says he has a master’s degree in exercise physiology from Columbia. He claims a fourth-degree black belt in Goshin-Jitsu and that he has “mastered” karate, judo, akido and weaponry. He says he developed a “personal martial arts system called Triririka [...] an African New World Martial Arts.” Whyte claims expertise in “African/Caribbean Folk medicine” based in part on “holistic health and herbology at the School of Holistic Health and Natural Living in New York City.” On the same page, Whyte says he developed Modern Yoga.

I’m sure Gregory Whyte is a very nice man and well qualified to lead a phys ed or martial arts class. He may even have some unmentioned credential that qualifies him to detect and correct mold in the house, or advise me about decor or the arrangement of my landscape plants (another service he offers). But, Madam Editor, what makes this guy a “medical professional,” and why have you directed a “reader’s question” to him for a “straight answer?”

Sunday is Quack Day at America’s Best Community Daily. While the believers are in church, I’m home reading the “Health and Fitness” tab, an unending source of humor, better than the “funny papers” of my youth.

Today, for example, “Ask the Experts: Local medical professionals answer health-related questions and give straight answers on various subjects” contains this bit of hilarity:

“Q: I have heard a lot about internal cleansing, but why is this important? A: Internal cleansing is a common term used to describe the act of process of [sic] ridding the body of toxic substances that enter or are produced by the body. Harmful toxins existing in the body are of two types, those produced by external or environmental sources such as factories, industrial plants or mold. These are called exogenous toxins. The other — called endogenous toxins – is caused by the body during its various processes. Accumulated toxins existing in the body are a serious problem. The results of numerous studies indicate that a number of toxic substances are responsible for many of the diseases prevalent today. Because of the vast amounts of toxins, the body is unable to naturally cleans itself completely. Internal cleansing assists the body with the removal of toxins. The process uses special herbs, foods and a number of other therapies and procedures.”

This little bit of Q&A compiled by De Soto Sun Editor Dawn Krebs (I don’t believe for one moment a reader wrote in with this question), concludes with the note: “Gregory N. Whyte is a health education specialist and holistic health practitioner. He writes and lectures on topics and areas within the spectrum of fitness, holistic health and natural healing, and provides consulting counseling and training services.”

Now, no one with an ounce of sense would read Whyte’s Quack Day contribution without asking: what toxins? what studies? what prevalent diseases? what cleansing assists? what special herbs? what therapies? and what procedures?

But, silly me, I thought newspaper editors were supposed to ask these questions. After all “what” is about 20 percent of the five W’s, right?

Here’s what the editor doesn’t report about her featured “medical professional:”

Gregory N. Whyte makes no claim to having a medical degree, although he says he earned a bachelor’s degree in phys ed from Hunter College in New York. Neither does he have — or claim to have — any health-related license in the state of Florida.

He does claim to be author of a book he has for sale: “Mold Management and Tutorial.” The book is a self-published book and costs $34.95. It is available only at his his Web site, “Advanced Health and Safety I.T.D. Inspection Testing Design.” The Web site also sells home inspections for “air quality and other pollutants.” Whyte claims to identify “Environmental Disharmony” through poor interior design and decor.

A five-minute Internet search turns up Militant Islam Monitor, a Web site that lists Islamic activists and credits Whyte as “creator of Tiririka survival and development system.” That site’s broken link to Whyte’s bio is available in the Wayback Machine. It’s a November 2005 page for The Truth Establishment Institute, listing a Chicago post office box address and several still-active links to stories about Louis Farrakhan and a mission statement about a “justified” society.

On his own bio page, Whyte says he has a master’s degree in exercise physiology from Columbia. He claims a fourth-degree black belt in Goshin-Jitsu and that he has “mastered” karate, judo, akido and weaponry. He says he developed a “personal martial arts system called Triririka [...] an African New World Martial Arts.” Whyte claims expertise in “African/Caribbean Folk medicine” based in part on “holistic health and herbology at the School of Holistic Health and Natural Living in New York City.” On the same page, Whyte says he developed Modern Yoga.

I’m sure Gregory Whyte is a very nice man and well qualified to lead a phys ed or martial arts class. He may even have some unmentioned credential that qualifies him to detect and correct mold in the house, or advise me about decor or the arrangement of my landscape plants (another service he offers). But, Madam Editor, what makes this guy a “medical professional,” and why have you directed a “reader’s question” to him for a “straight answer?”