Dr. Mark Hyman mangles autism science on–where else?–The Huffington Post

“Step 2: Replace the Missing Nutrients to Help His Genes Work Better”

I’m sorry, but I just couldn’t get past this steaming pile of ignorance.

If this were true, and I followed the protocol, I would expect my kid to be EVEN MORE autistic. We have at least 4 family members with AS. Just imagine if my kid’s genes ‘worked better’. Forget Asperger’s, my son would be Rainman.

I now have a headache.

He also links deficiency in omega-3 fatty acids with an increased likelihood of murders.

It’s cute.

I’m no statistician, but it seems to me an increase from 1/3000 to 1/150 is only 20-fold, not 200.
Otherwise a great post and yet another face and name to watch out for. He’s got a good sincere manner and no doubt a lot of worried parents will swallow the whole story without much question

“An appeal to visit the quack site of all autism quack sites”
“The crazy, it’s strong with this one.”
“This guy is a quack.”

The Hypocrisy!!! It burns so bright that it threatens to go supernova!!!!

Wow, snerd…you really are on top of the mental food chain, aren’t you?

What do you call a bunch of quacks calling someone else a quack? Right….hypocrisy.

And no, I’m not Sue.

Having been on both an antibiotic and an antifungal at the same time (I got a sinus infection while doing a course of Lamisil for fungal toenails), dear god, what a miserable thing to do to a little kid! (And talk about GI upsets.) The side effects of those kinds of drugs are bad enough if you’re an adult and doing it voluntarily, never mind if you’re a little kid with communicative difficulties. The regimen described is, IMO, bordering on child abuse.

I’d say I felt sorry for the parents for having to deal with a miserable kid for that long, but the parents really have only themselves to blame.

What do you call a bunch of quacks calling someone else a quack? Right….hypocrisy.

Ahh, the old I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I defence; cunning. With that out of the way, would you now like to take a shot at defending Hyman’s claims with some (dare to dream) evidence? You know, actually demonstrate that he isn’t the complete and utter quack he appears to be.

He received diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, measles, mumps and rubella, chicken pox, hepatitis A and B, influenza, pneumonia, hemophilous, and meningitis vaccines — all before he was 2 years old. Then something changed.

I’m reminded of Peter Griffin…

“Oh no, I knew a guy who bought a used car from the newspaper once. 10 years later? Bam! Herpes.”

Pablo said: The first DTaP and HIB are given at 2 months. Suddenly, two years later, BAM! Autism.

I’ve seen moms that claim vaccine injury years after the shots. Some even claim decades. Then they blame the doctor for not giving their theory the time of day. Of course, the same idiots complain about doctors not offering “alternative remedies” like homeopathy.

It must be nice to have a convenient boogeyman on which to blame all that ails you.

I concur Paul, a creepy bio indeed. I love his turgid tale of Mercury poisoning that rivals Jeremy Piven’s. The only thing our hapless Doctor hasn’t presented with is Morgellons . . . yet.

Does he seriously think that non-autistic kids’ shit doesn’t stink?

Dr Hyman probably thinks he is so wonderful that his own shit doesn’t stink.

My eyes instantly glaze over whenever I hear or see the word “wellness:” ORAC, is there something metaphysically wrong with me, and how do I cure this problem?

My eyes instantly glaze over whenever I hear or see the word “wellness:” ORAC, is there something metaphysically wrong with me, and how do I cure this problem?

Hi–

Long time listener, first time caller. You have a typo up high:

“which is why I’ve turned my sites on Ultrawellness.”

I think a lot of people on all sides of this discussion disagree with Dr. Hyman’s opinions.

Best,

Jay

Dr. Jay may not be aware of my extreme distaste for pedantry, particularly pedantry in the form of comments that consist of nothing more than a typo or spelling flame and have no substantive commentary associated with them. Indeed, as regular readers may know, I have a tendency, depending on my mood, to delete such comments with extreme prejudice.

A thousand apologies. Lord knows we wouldn’t want any pedantry here! But, there was substance in my saying that many people, myself included, disagree with Dr. Hyman.

Jay

But, there was substance in my saying that many people, myself included, disagree with Dr. Hyman.

Good for you. Now, what are you going to do about it?

Will you write a rebuttal to the Huff Post? The next time you get to a anti-vax rally (whatever fluff name they are given), will you speak out against such whackery? Or will you sit back and let him go unchecked because you know that were you to speak out against him, you will lose some of your status as the anti-vaxxers favorite doctor? You might even get lumped in with the evil vaccinationists!

Fine job, there, Dr Orac! My best bud Louise and I did a couple articles over at our blog about functional dumbasses and a dumbass rodeo concerning this woo-doctor thinkin that folks had broken brains. He sure does think they got broken brains and ain’t capable of thinkin straight. Oooh boy, he’s abankin on that so he can take their money.

His parents were told that nothing could be done except arduously painful and barely effective behavioral and occupational therapy techniques.

Wow… arduously painful? My son quite enjoyed his behavioral and occupational therapy, what with all the swinging and playing of games – especially as he was rewarded for participation with Skittles. I had no idea the tot was such a masochist.

Barely effective? My son was nearly four and both completely non-verbal and prone to violent/self-injurious outbursts when we began ABA therapy. Just over three months later he spoke his first self-initiated sentence. (“Bye Mom, I love you” – MAJOR tear jerker, that one.) Within 6 months his self-injurious behaviors were a thing of the past.

Now 10, my son is healthy and happy. He has friends and will talk non-stop about a number of fond subjects. He’s behind academically, certainly, but he loves science and is learning to read.

Luckily I understand, more so than Dr. Hyman apparently, that personal experience doesn’t trump sound science so I would never claim that all Autists will respond as well to ABA as my son did – but one good turn of subjective experience deserves another don’t you think?

“Dr. Mark Hyman is famous as the “founder” of a form of woo known as “functional medicine.” This new form of woo is…well, I’m not sure what it is…”

Dr. Hyman is merely a leading proponent of FM, not its founder.

I like John Neustadt’s definition of functional medicine. it is clear and succinct. It strikes me as a sensible way of viewing many diseases (and how to deal with them):

“In many cases, the underlying causes of disease are biochemical in nature. Biochemistry is how the body uses vitamins, minerals, fats and proteins to do its job, and how things like infections, allergies and environmental toxins interfere with proper biochemistry to cause symptoms and disease. In other words, if you weren’t sick last year or last month, and you are now, something has changed in your biochemistry. Determining where a person’s biochemistry has gone haywire and then correcting it through targeted nutritional therapies is called medical biochemistry or functional medicine.”

Indeed, there is evidence that as many as 19% of autistic children move “off the spectrum” by their 7th birthday.

Orac, that sounds interesting – do you have a citation? It would certainly go some distance to explaining the prevalence statistics.

@”Edumacation”:

Well, Risperdal is “Evidence-Based Medicine,” right?

“However, an affirmative approach that rewards progress (Skittles!) wouldn’t be a problem.”

I really hate to see ABA’s using skittles, m&m’s, etc. as a reinforcer, since FD&C food colorings have been linked to behavior problems in children. Kinda defeats the purpose of ABA. ::shrug:: Not to mention the effects on dental health.

Charlotte,
Peter Szatmari, in his book, A Mind Apart: Understanding Children with Autism and Asperger Syndrome, suggests that there have always been reports of improvement and recovery. he cites Kanner from 1972 reporting on the first 96 patients he saw with autism.In adulthood 11 were functioning gainfully in society despite continuing problems with intimate adult relationships. Szatmari suggests that according to his own data 20 per cent of adults with aspergers and 10 per cent with autism progress to the point were they score in the average range for social and communication skills and have few if any clinical symptoms of autism.

There is very little research into adult outcomes. Anecdotally, the autistic adults that I know via the National Autistic Society could all be said to function gainfully but are still recognizably autistic. We also do not know how many “recovered” autistics are, as Liane Holliday Willey put it in the title to her autobiography, Pretending to Be Normal while retaining their autistic neurology. One autistic adult in the USA described himself as an Apple computer running a PC emulator which sometimes crashed.

A “perceived” failure of a single product? The drug grew breasts on boys, that’s not a “perceived” failure, that IS a failure, and a major one at that.

Cheers Mike 🙂

I was hoping for something a little more rigorous, but that’s a start. I know that most autistic spectrum adults “function gainfully” (couldn’t think of a better way to put it than yours!) but 7 seems rather young for pretending to be normal and learning to conform with social norms, hence my interest.

Also, 7 is so early that kids who are functioning in the ‘normal’ range by then wouldn’t have made it into the statistics at all until recently (in the UK). I assume they’d also be much less likely to join organisations like the National Autistic Society even if diagnosed, so they may disappear from the conversation a bit.

Jake Crosby is just trying to hijack yet another thread, it seems.

If I understood that definition of functional Medicine, it sounds like it denies that bacteria et al cause disease. Is it in the camp of Germ Theory Denial?

Oh, look. Here I am visiting my family in Texas, and as well as being fans of our old friend Wakefield, the even less credible Moulden, and dear Mike Adams, they are also fans of this guy.

And I am apparently obliged not to dismember my blood relatives, for some reason I can’t quite make out at the moment.

Help meeeeeeeeeee……

Jake Crosby comments (tangentially):

Risperdal went through a “proper scientific randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a large number of children,” didn’t stop it from growing milk-producing breasts on boys.

Since Jake didn’t get the drift of several previous commenters, let me be the one to spell it out in painful detail.

Risperidone (Risperdal) can cause some boys to “grow breasts” (gynecomastia) – this is true. It is called a “side effect”. It also happens to be effective at reducing some of the problematic behaviors of autism – as several placebo-controlled randomized studies have shown.

So, we have a drug that is shown to be effective – not at “curing” or “recovering” autism but at reducing the severity of problematic behaviors (such as aggression). It also has a side effect of mild to moderate gynecomastia in some boys.

This is how real medicines work, Jake. They have a desired effect (or effects) and also may have a number of undesirable side effects. Sometimes, these side effects are troublesome enough to make people stop taking the drug.

In contrast, fantasy medicines (like homeopathy and “energy medicine”) have no side effects – they also have no real effects.

In further contrast, we have “therapies” such as chelation for autism and Lupron “therapy” for autism that – while having no demonstrated real effects – have very real and sometimes serious (e.g. death) side effects.

So, Jake, what would you have us do? Treat with real medicines that have real studies supporting their use – even though they have well-documented side effects?

Or should we resort to fantasy treatments that have neither side effects nor real effects?

Or should we take the third path of using real medicines in ways that have not been shown to work, thus accepting the risk of side effects with little (or no) hope of real effects?

Prometheus

As to his dental health – we did brush his teeth. Also, food rewards of any kind are usually intended only for short term use – typically being replaced by more complex rewards as part of therapy.

Not to put words in your mouth, Tanya, but wouldn’t you say that if the choice is between tooth decay and poor development due to autism, that the choice is pretty obvious?

Honestly, Jen, “don’t do a treatment for autism because it might cause cavities”? Your priorities appear a little mis-guided.

A good quality systematic review does not support the use of risperidone with autistics (Jesner et al., 2007). A more recent multi-site RCT involving developmentally disabled adults (including autistics) concludes that anti-psychotics, including risperidone, are not an acceptable treatment for this population (Tyrer et al., 2008).

@Orac:

Well excuse me for being such a lay-person about all this. Finally, you’ve managed to prove to me that you know something about this topic only other “scientists” would know, that when they refer to their publication record they only mean their research. While you’re at it, why don’t you tell me about the scientist’s secret hand-shake?

As for Dr. Herbert, even if there is nothing in her own research to support her claims, she still bases what she says off of original research, that’s what counts.

Well, Risperdal is “Evidence-Based Medicine,” right?

It is indeed. And what the evidence shows is that while risperidone can often alleviate some of the more disruptive symptoms of autism that can be an obstacle to educational and behavioral therapies, it also can produce some significant side effects, including hormonal effects, such that its benefits must be weighed against its risks on an individual basis. So did you have some sort of point, or are you simply belaboring the obvious point that genuinely effective treatments almost always carry some risk of adverse effects?

Not only are you silly but you are also out of date. Even the IACC has acknowledged the need to start funding research of the potential environmental causes of autism. As Professor Simon Baron Cohen has stated publicly on at least 3 occasions given that in some cases where one identical twin has autism the other does not indicates that autism likely a result of an interaction of genetic, environmental and biological factors.

Actually the twin concordance of autism is remarkably high. While autism is almost always shared by identical twins, the severity may vary. This is suggestive of an environmental influence, but that is not necessarily the case. After all, twins have fingerprints that are similar, but not exactly the same. And even identical twins may have genetic differences–epigenetic differences, differences in distribution of mutant mitochondria within the body, and differences in patterns of X-chromosome inactivation in girls. The latter accounts for variations in severity of Rett Syndrome, which is well established to have a genetic cause. Notably, Rett Syndrome commonly includes autistic-like symptoms, as well as apparent “regression.”

Nevertheless, an environmental influence remains a possibility. But it is hard to know where to start. While vaccines have been pretty clearly eliminated, children and pregnant women are exposed to a huge number of chemicals–pretty much every substance ever made or used by man can be found at some level in the human body. And then there is also the possibility that something like a viral infection could play a role. Perhaps once the genetic basis of autism is better elucidated, we will be in a better position to evaluate the impact of possible environmental factors.

Jesner et al. (2007) note many major limitations with the included RCTs (which were “few and small”), and write that what benefits there may be (which “must be interpreted cautiously”) have to be considered against important adverse effects.

Jesner et al. (2007) conclude that “carers and clinicians should be aware of the paucity of evidence in administering this drug in such a vulnerable group of people.” And: “it is impossible to evaluate the long term side effects and efficacy of risperidone, and this is particularly important.”

I don’t see statements like “paucity of evidence,” and so on, to be in support of administering risperidone to autistics.

The hilarious thing is that in Arianna’s article on Van Jones, she states doesn’t allow fringe conspiracy theorist like 9/11 truthers on her website

“Because you keep changing your ‘nym, it is convenient to just know you as either Sue M., or just a Sue M. clone.”

Uh, no. I post with this same name everytime I post here. You sycophantic sociopaths can’t seem to figure that out, though.

@67 JR, nobody is passing judgement. Most people are just doing the best they can. Some children (like mine) cant handle even the slightest amount of food coloring, very little sugar, no detergents…and on and on. When they start itching within seconds of exposure to the offending ingredient, and then it progresses to hives, then areas of red peeling skin, you have to be very careful. Just because all kids dont react in such a visible organ like their skin, does not mean they arent reacting in another organ like their brain, liver, etc. You may not see it, but the damage may be happening. So, we are all learning as we go. Once you know better, you can make choices on the few things you actually have control over, and do better. No judgement.

Pablo, just a note, I must say from experience that all the behavior mofification in the world does not work when my autistic child is getting the dental work on those rotting teeth done. Actually, he withdraws more…stress, pain, anesthetic? dont know. Nightmare!

I don’t see statements like “paucity of evidence,” and so on, to be in support of administering risperidone to autistics.

Nobody disagrees that there are real worries about the use of risperidone in autism. Certainly the potential side effects and the absence of long-term data on safety and efficacy are major concerns. On the other hand, it has perhaps the strongest evidence of efficacy of any medication, and some autistic patients have very severe behavioral issues, so the negatives of risperidone may have to be weighed against treatment alternatives that are also unpalatable. I thought that Jesner et al. accurately laid out the positives and negatives based upon the evidence. They did not, however, recommend that it not be used.

It’s interesting to read Dr. Hyman’s interpreation of his health issues, and what he credits his recovery to. Here is a guy who undergoes years of extreme stress in his life – rural family medicine, ER physician, divorce, fight for child custody, being run out of town due to rumors – and blames “chronic fatigue syndrome” and “mercury poisoning” as the cause of his ill health.
A little insight-challenged, perhaps?

trrll’s position is that the reported results and stated conclusions of Jesner et al. (2007) are irrelevant and should be disregarded. I disagree.

I also disagree with trrll’s assumption that some medication or other *must* be an effective approach. Based on this unfounded assumption, trrll is certain that a medication with a “paucity of evidence” for its effectiveness, coupled with evidence for major adverse effects, *must* be recommended–regardless that this is not at all what Jesner et al. (2007) conclude. Again, I disagree.

I also disagree that the findings of Tyrer et al. (2008) are irrelevant.

Charlotte,
sorry, I missed the age reference.

Age of diagnosis is coming down. Seven year olds who were bright enough and motivated enough to learn how to conform could be pretending to be normal in a school setting as a survival mechanism. I suggest that these would be kids whose early presentation would have been too subtle to trigger a diagnosis even 10 years ago. That is why they show up in epidemiological studies with rigorous case finding procedures but were not get picked up by routine health or education screening procedures.

There is also the case of children who do learn how to get by with rule based behaviour until puberty tears up the rule book and they become autistic again.

The other side of this is that improved awareness and understanding may be leading to “too many, too soon” diagnoses that are really specific language or learning difficulties which respond to special education interventions and abate by age 7.

This is all hypothesis and no data. Sorry. We need more longitudinal studies.

@”Orac,” who said:

“It’s also quite clear that Hyman is pulling the old “science was wrong before” gambit.”

Blaming autism on the parents is science? Those two blogs you cite define “science” as being based on a little something called “evidence.”

What evidence did the medical establishment on autism and its leader Bruno Bettelheim, a complete crank who was later found to have forged his own credentials and was not even a real psychologist, use to liken the mothers of autistic children to Nazi SS guards?

For what Jesner et al. (2007) concluded, see #72 above, where I quote from the “Authors’ Conclusions” under “Implications for practice.” This can be verified by reading the paper.

According to what trrll has written, trrll’s position is that (1) my statement that Jesner et al. (2007) do not suppport/recommend the use of risperidone is totally unfounded (possibly, I have made it up, including the quotes from the authors’ conclusions with respect to practice); (2) unless Jesner et al. (2007) or I claim another medication is effective, this must mean that risperidone is effective and this must mean that there is sufficient evidence to support its use; (3) Tyrer et al. (2008) should be disregarded–there is nothing relevant in this paper.

I disagree with all these positions (and no, I didn’t and make them up–see above for trrll’s repeated statements). I generally disagree that any treatment for any population should be considered effective when there is a “paucity of evidence” for its effectiveness coupled with evidence for major adverse effects. I generally disagree that a more recent multi-site RCT involving a variety of developmentally disabled people (including autistics), and reporting rapid, dramatic and sustained results, is currently entirely irrelevant and should be disregarded.

I disagree that in concluding that there is a “paucity of evidence” with respect to “administering” risperidone to autistics, Jesner et al. (2007) are not in any way referring to what they found with respect to the effectiveness of risperidone. Also, I again disagree that this strongly-worded conclusion is in support of using risperidone with autistics.

To point out the obvious (to me, at least), those interested in what I’m responding to can refer to trrll’s actual comments, above. I responded to what trrll wrote (often, more than once), which may or may not be what trrll meant.

I again disagree that Tyrer et al. (2008) is totally irrelevant and should be disregarded with respect to any population meeting the inclusion criteria. Yes, I’m repeating myself. Also, in my view, the bar should not be lowered when it comes to autistics. This does not result in better outcomes for us, any more than it would for any other population.

Michelle, I’ve taken the liberty to gather what I think are relevant quotes from trrll before you started trying to summarize what you thought she was saying:

“risperidone can often alleviate some of the more disruptive symptoms of autism that can be an obstacle to educational and behavioral therapies, it also can produce some significant side effects, including hormonal effects, such that its benefits must be weighed against its risks on an individual basis.”

“Jesner et al. did not come out definitively for or against risperidone. They state, “Some evidence of the benefits of risperidone in irritability, repetition and social withdrawal were apparent. These must however be considered against the adverse effects, the most prominent being weight gain.” They conclude that “Risperidone can be beneficial in some features of autism,” but that “Further research is necessary to determine the efficacy pf risperidone in clinical practice.””

“Nobody disagrees that there are real worries about the use of risperidone in autism. Certainly the potential side effects and the absence of long-term data on safety and efficacy are major concerns. On the other hand, it has perhaps the strongest evidence of efficacy of any medication, and some autistic patients have very severe behavioral issues, so the negatives of risperidone may have to be weighed against treatment alternatives that are also unpalatable. I thought that Jesner et al. accurately laid out the positives and negatives based upon the evidence. They did not, however, recommend that it not be used.”
“I said that the evidence was strongest for risperidone, as compared to all other medications. If you disagree with this, please cite the passage in Jesner et al in which they state that there is stronger evidence for any other medication. Jesner et al. concluded that the evidence supported the statement, “Risperidone can be beneficial in some features of autism.” They did note the lack of long-term follow-up, and that further studies were necessary to substantiate its value in actual practice. This is true for all medications that are used for treatment of autism. They did not recommend against its use.
Tyrer et al.’s study was not designed to address treatment of autism. While they did not actively exclude autistic patients from their study group, only 14 out of 86 patients exhibited any symptoms of autism, so even if risperidone were as effective on those patients, as it has found to be in studies that focused specifically on autistic patients, the effect would likely be swamped by the larger number of nonautistic patients.”

And then you conclude “trrll’s position is that the reported results and stated conclusions of Jesner et al. (2007) are irrelevant and should be disregarded. I disagree.
I also disagree with trrll’s assumption that some medication or other *must* be an effective approach. Based on this unfounded assumption, trrll is certain that a medication with a “paucity of evidence” for its effectiveness, coupled with evidence for major adverse effects, *must* be recommended–regardless that this is not at all what Jesner et al. (2007) conclude. Again, I disagree.

And I honestly don’t see how you got that from what she wrote. If I somehow missed an important quote, please (PLEASE!) quote it for us now, so we can see what you’re disagreeing with (which, ya know, would’ve been really helpful the first time it was asked for).

Good article. But what has Dr. Hyman’s nonsense – some of it apparent even to a non-surgeon like myself – have to do with appearing on –“where else?“–The Huffington Post. I find much of interest on HuffPost, some very well-written articles and news tidbits I’d be unlikely to find elsewhere. I also found among the responses to this and later articles of Dr Hyman – whose inclusion on HuffPost IS unfortunate – a number challenging his science and his motives, my own among them.

Oh, well; Arianna can take care of herself well enough. I still appreciate the extra ammo you provide for my own blog comments, at those moments when I can’t seem to resist. Not unlike this one.

Suzanne:

More and more scientific evidence is pointing to affects of pesticides, hormones & other poisons from our environments on our overall health. Not to mention the lack of vitamins in our fast-food, non-organic diets.

Funny how you managed to not provide any “scientific” evidence (which I suspect you think are links to certain websites, and not real peer reviewed papers).

Just a reminder, the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.

I’m with you Suzanne – keep on trying! Having a lackluster life (like many of the posters here) before being diagnosed with gluten intolerance, getting off gluten, and getting a life, I’d have thunk the way they do, too. I was stupid on that stuff. I have a kid on the AS, too. She’s stupid and won’t change, either (I found out too late to change her diet for her). Fix the mother’s gut (most mom’s are fat and/or malnourished thin and/or yeasty), you fix the baby/brain. Duh. If people did their homework, tried something new, rather than preferring to listen to themselves spew idiocy, our society might actually progress. Please don’t correct my grammar, I did what I could while in school while eating gluten/casein.

The author’s a great writer – too bad it’s for the wrong team.

@Emma

You are an idiot, the diet isn’t helping.

Calling your child stupid because she won’t listen to you? I say cudos to her, I probably wouldn’t even speak to you if I were your daughter.

@Emma

I would never say my autistic son is stupid, anonymous or not. I am not going to argue with you, you have come across here as mean and uneducated. I am not saying that is what you are, just how seem to be, judging from your comment.

For the definition of Poe use the Urban dictionary.

Emma & Suzanne … Good going for being wise. Unfortunately there are people who are so scientific they can’t live without double blind studies to prove anything and everything. Remember, many thought the world was flat and couldn’t even begin to comprehend the world was in fact round! These peeps will complain and spew over and over again, until a double blind study proves other. The way they flow!

patricia:
I hope to God this is a Poe.

I really have no doubt that one of these days we’ll get a visit from an anti-vaxxer so fanatical about seeing their viewpoint prevail over logic that they will, at the same time, condemn all us “scientific” types for only accepting double-blind studies (rather than also accepting their anecdotal data) and insist that our evidence of their vaccines-cause-autism theories being wrong are meaningless because it doesn’t come from a vacc-versus-completely-unvacc double-blind RCT.

This is the strangest blog I’ve ever seen! I don’t think that eating whole organic foods and having your diet in balance is scarey or awful. And I certainly think that common sense tells us that our children’s diet have a great effect on how they act and feel. As a teacher of 40 years, I think that Dr. Hyman’s theories generally are right and I don’t get what motivates anyone to pour such vehement statements about him on here. I abhor the ease which the internet provides for someone to pick apart anyone and everyone. There is NO ONE who has reached perfection.

Frightening.

It’s possible that Dr. Hyman doesn’t know that his recommendations are ill founded. Some of what he says is reasonable; however, many of his conclusions, and the so-called scientific basis he claims, are wrong. The danger is that he is misleading the public — and he may not even know it, himself.

We in the general public are woefully unskilled in scientific analysis. We treat science as if it’s a great and unlearnable mystery. And we are easily misled by people who wave apparent credentials.

Dr. Hyman’s CV shows he’s received standard medical training. Unfortunately, such training may not adequately address the interpretation of statistics, a serious vulnerability which may leave the physician with unwarranted confidence in his/her ability to interpret the results and implications of scientific research.

Physicians who wish to perform scientific research generally obtain the PhD as well. Dr. Hyman does not have a PhD. Yet he asserts — persuasively, and with great personal confidence — conclusions which are unwarranted by the evidence.

Statistician Gerd Gigerenzer specifically discusses some statistical errors physicians typically make in his book Calculated Risks: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You.

From another reader’s review:
“Astonishingly, doctors and lawyers don’t understand risk any better than anyone else. Gigerenzer reports a study in which doctors were told the results of breast cancer screenings and then were asked to explain the risks of contracting breast cancer to a woman who received a positive result from a screening. The actual risk was small because the test gives many false positives. But nearly every physician in the study overstated the risk. Yet many people will have to make important health decisions based on such information and the interpretation of that information by their doctors.”

Patricia, you have it backwards. Hyman has to show his treatment is effective. You do not get to come up with something without evidence, claim it works, and then demand people demonstrate you are wrong. Orac and others on this thread have also given very good reasons why what he presents here is not correct.

Louise, I get from your comment that you have never attended an IEP meeting for a child with disabilities. If you do actually have an autistic child, I suggest you look closely at the options presented to you, and look more critically at the people who are being very “nice” to you now. Because (and trust me on this), it will come and bite you in the posterior later.

You obviously have no idea what goes on in the real world.

Anyone with a modicum of scientific knowledge, healthy skepticism, and open-minded curiosity will probably concede that the modern mainstream medical system, both in the realm of research and development and in the realm of practical treatment, is deeply flawed. To begin with, corporate interests exert an inappropriate influence on conventional medical opinion, which is at best incomplete and at worst inaccurate or misguided–note my use of the word “opinion,” which is the only suitable term for the vast majority of “accepted” medical consensus. At present, the functional intricacies of the human system are so poorly understood, and the existing empirical knowledge so fragmentary, that even the most pre-eminent scientists in the world are limited, essentially, to a series of educated conjectures that only partially or incompletely encompass the truth. Furthermore, the exclusive emphasis on synthetic chemicals in the treatment of the entire spectrum of human disease, and the denial of the influence of environmental factors, contradicts some of the most fundamental principles of human biology. The human body is an extraordinarily complex organic system composed of an innumerable quantity of inter-related elements, none of which can be decisively isolated from the whole, nor from the larger environmental systems of which the individual system is merely a part. The recognition of the interrelatedness of all physiological phenomena lies at the heart of “systems” biology–and “functional” medicine merely seeks to extend this awareness of interconnectedness to the interactions between the human body and its environment. My perception is that people like Mark Hyman are merely pursuing a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the way that physiological systems function on the molecular level, and using this (developing) understanding to identify the many possible reasons that healthy physiology can malfunction. Conventional medicine is so inordinately preoccupied with the synthesis, evaluation, and deployment of drugs that it hardly bothers to ask why the body is malfunctioning in the first place. At best, its vague allusions to the role of heredity are no more well-substantiated than any of Hyman’s claims.
To note that many profoundly important discoveries and scientific advances throughout history have been met with vehement opposition does not prove the legitimacy of Hyman’s approach; but it does offer a compelling reason to remain open-minded and skeptical of all “established” knowledge. Let us not forget that bloodletting was a standard medical practice for many centuries, and anyone that questioned the legitimacy of this approach or suggested more sensible alternatives would have been vilified, ostracized, or disregarded. This, again, does not prove the particular validity of Hyman’s ideas, but it serves as a reminder that the common or “mainstream” medical opinion at any given time is by no means unequivocally accurate.
I cannot understand why alternative medicine is so venomously attacked by proponents of the mainstream medical community. Alternative approaches have helped countless suffering people for whom conventional medicine was ineffective or damaging. For example, I have struggled with mental health issues for years, and I’ve consistently found conventional medicine to be either useless or actively destructive to both my emotional and physical well-being. The help and advice that I’ve received from “alternative” practitioners has practically saved my life on a number of occasions.
Please, try to be open-minded and tolerant of all medical hypotheses, particularly those whose motivation is to alleviate human suffering, not to maximize corporate profits. Certainly some caution and skepticism is warranted when considering alternative approaches, and undoubtedly some genuine “quackery” exists; but to dismiss intelligent, thoughtful, sensible, and well-intentioned arguments simply because they contradict the tenuously-supported mainstream “consensus” is gravely irresponsible and injurious to the pursuit of scientific truth.
Thank you to all those who have offered thoughtful and considerate input.

Oh, goody! It is a fact free necromancer wall of text in triplicate!

Funny how it chose to post on an article posted over a year ago, and not the one posted today about Hyman.

Scott,
I appreciate your response to my comment. Allow me to state that I have no personal or even philosophical allegiance to Mark Hyman or any other medical practitioner of any stripe. I am as skeptical of him as I am of anyone else. I’m simply a person who has suffered as a result of standard modern medical practices, and it seems prudent to consider alternative viewpoints before categorically rejecting them, as many proponents of conventional medicine seem to do. Also, I’m a newcomer to the realm of cyber-pugilism (thus the unintentional “wall of text in triplicate”), and I don’t even know how to quote someone else’s comment. But I’ll respectfully attempt to address some of your responses.

–“We know quite a lot about how the human body works”–such an assertion can only be true in purely relative terms. If our knowledge of human physiology were as extensive as you claim, it might be possible to identify why conventional pharmacological treatments create so many unintended complications, as evidenced by the nearly universal occurrence of what are euphemistically labeled “side effects.” In fact, the only medications that I have taken in my lifetime that listed no common side effects were essentially orthomolecular treatments: namely, thyroid hormone and “medical foods” such as methylfolate. If our knowledge of human physiology is so vast, then why haven’t we been able to identify the sources of common pharmacological side effects and correct them? I recognize that this is a dynamic, ongoing process, and I don’t doubt that progressively safer and more effective medications will continue to emerge, but the complications inherent in conventional pharmacological treatment are indicative of one of its fundamental fallacies: no drug can truly correct the organic dysfunction of biological systems whose unfathomable complexity and elegance is the product of millions of years of natural selection. Beyond the monstrous arrogance of the assumption that man-made chemicals are capable of correcting imbalances within these ancient and delicate systems, such a viewpoint is scientifically invalid: synthetic pharmacological agents consist of a configuration of atoms that has no place within the extraordinarily sophisticated economy of human physiology. The human body has no genomic provision for accommodating the abnormal chemical reactions that they produce. The sort of scientific research that I support attempts to identify the molecular mechanisms of the dysfunction, rather than evaluate the effectiveness of a synthetic agent in managing symptoms. The oft-used “smoke and fire” analogy, though an intolerable cliche, is appropriate: treating symptoms with pharmacology is akin to struggling to conceal, dissipate, or otherwise manage the presence of the proverbial “smoke.” But the only sustainable way to eliminate the smoke is to address its cause: the fire. Any protocol that fails to investigate and address the “fire” will ultimately fail, as the fire continues to produce smoke that becomes increasingly difficult to manage. Yes, I agree that an investigation of root causes is not entirely absent from conventional medicine, but it is preposterous to assert that this investigation lies at the “core” of conventional medicine. I speak from personal experience: I have visited upwards of 30 conventional doctors and psychiatrists in three different states during the past four years. On only one occasion have I received practical information regarding diet, exercise, and lifestyle from any of these doctors, even after prolonged and repeated visits. Even when I was admitted to a hospital following severe malnutrition due to an eating disorder, I received no information regarding nutrition, nor was I evaluated for nutritional deficiencies or systemic abnormalities. I was prescribed an SSRI and sent home. Even when a GP admonishes a patient to “eat right and exercise,” such injunctions are little more than vague, simplistic, and cursory repetitions of whatever meager nutritional education the M.D. might have received in medical school. The purpose of functional medicine, of which Mark Hyman is merely one particularly visible proponent, is (at least in part) to define more clearly what it actually means to “eat right,” and to determine what conditions might prevent the healthy functioning of physiological systems even in the presence of adequate nutrition and exercise. Sure, Hyman might be a quack–I don’t care one way or the other. It is the principles of functional medicine, as they diverge from conventional practices, that I find valid, intriguing, and worthy of vocal support.

–You are correct: the emphasis on pharmacology is not “exclusive.” But it is certainly dominant, and unjustifiably so.

–You are also correct that it is the scientists involved in the pursuit of knowledge, not people like Mark Hyman, that are “pursuing a deeper and more nuanced understanding” of human physiology. What I support is the field of functional medicine and the possibilities that it presents, not Mark Hyman or any other individual practitioner. Part of my point, though, is that personally attacking a single popular physician is not a valid grounds for discounting the legitimacy of alternative medicine entirely. The man is not identical with the ideas that he supports and propagates. And it is the ideas that I believe are worthy, at the very least, of sensitive consideration.

–“To invoke the Galileo gambit, one must not only have one’s ideas rejected. One must also be RIGHT.” This is true, but it is arrogant and absurd for you to assume that you possess the authority to determine who is “right” and who is not. Similarly, your dismissal of alternative medicine as “fraudulent” presupposes an intellectual authority that I am certain you do not possess, as no human being in the history of the race has ever possessed such authority. Yes, of course there are SIGNIFICANT problems and issues with alternative medicine. It is as deeply flawed as conventional medicine, and perhaps more so. But this fact does not warrant the categorical dismissal of novel hypotheses that contradict the prevailing medical consensus. I have never encountered a hypothesis “promulgated” by the proponents of functional medicine that was NOT supported by scientific evidence. Granted, the evidence is fragmentary, inconclusive, and difficult to interpret, but such is the nature of all scientific investigations, being merely partial revelations of a truth that is overwhelmingly complex and in a state of perpetual flux. To ignore the discoveries of functional medicine, however inconclusive they may be, is an impediment to the advancement of medicine as a whole.

–There are so many logical fallacies in your response to the “bloodletting” analogy that it is difficult to address them all. First of all, it is irrelevant to point out that scientific advances exposed the inaccuracy of this practice: functional medicine is a branch of scientific inquiry, one devoted in part to determining why conventional medicine is so dysfunctional. It is in this capacity that functional medicine may in fact serve a role analogous to that of the first opponents of bloodletting. Secondly, the process by which most drugs, particularly psychiatric drugs, are approved relies heavily on personal experience and anecdotal evidence: the efficacy of the drug is determined by the change in self-reported symptoms on various surveys in response to treatment. This is, as I’m sure you can recognize, simply a codified and systematized method of evaluating how a drug influences subjective experience. There is, at present, no genuinely objective evidence for the efficacy of psychiatric drugs (for example) in alleviating mental illness: the approval of the drug is based upon subjective experiences that are converted, fallaciously, into objective evidence by a standardized survey. Yes, it is problematic that many practitioners of alternative medicine lack any similarly standardized method of evaluating success; but the lack of such a system does not NECESSARILY invalidate the reported success of their treatments. It simply indicates that they lack the large-scale funding necessary to conduct statistically relevant trials of their methods. And where does that funding come from? Certainly not from independent practitioners of the methods in question. Meanwhile, conventional physicians frequently prescribe medications for “off-label” applications for which there is no evidence whatsoever–except for their own clinical experience with hundreds of different patients, which is no more intrinsically valid than the clinical experience of any practitioner of alternative or functional medicine.

–“In that world, root causes are entirely ignored. Even symptoms are largely irrelevant. Everybody gets exactly the same treatments (which quite often involve many times more pills than any MD in history has ever prescribed to a single patient).” This statement is simply factually inaccurate in several respects. Root causes are the primary focus of functional medicine and symptoms are of primary importance. Certainly it is true that treating illness with nutritional supplements, for example, requires a person to swallow a great number of “pills” every day, but the inconvenience of a given treatment is neither evidence for nor against its efficacy. Swallowing a handful of dietary supplement capsules every day is undoubtedly inconvenient, but it is essentially no more inconvenient than eating, and it MAY (and here I emphasize my uncertainty and skepticism) provide the body with the materials it needs to repair the dysfunction. Of course, it may also create additional problems; I acknowledge that possibility as well. But both the possibility for harm and the possibility for benefit exist in any medical treatment, whether supported or unsupported by clinical evidence. In any case, commenting on the number of pills involved in any treatment is completely irrelevant.

–Finally–you claim that functional or alternative medicine “hurts people.” What evidence do you have to support this claim? If it is anecdotal, then it is no more valid to this discussion than the thousands upon thousands of anecdotal reports of the benefits of such treatment. I need hardly mention that conventional medicine also incapacitates, cripples, maims, kills, or otherwise harms millions of people every year. The evidence of this phenomenon is far more concrete: it takes the form, for example, of the $700 million that Eli Lilly and Co. spent settling eight thousand personal-injury complaints in 2005.

Anyway, I do hope that what I’ve just written qualifies as the first intelligent, thoughtful, and sensible argument–not for “sCAM” per se, but for the necessity of considering alternative viewpoints–that you’ve yet encountered. Any statement that contains the word “never,” by the way, is rarely true. I’d be interested in your response.

Really? I think my post is perfectly legible. The punctuation and grammar are sound and there are no spelling problems. With my limited experience in Internet forums, I have formatted it as well as I am able. If you can read a book, you can read what I’ve just posted. I am genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say. I’m certainly not trying to be adversarial–I would truly enjoy reading your response. Please give it some effort. Otherwise, I hope that other people reading this forum will appreciate some of the things I’ve said.

Aldous, and did you read my second paragraph? Why did you post on a year old article instead on today’s article on Hyman?

Not many are willing to read a wall of text on something over a year old!! You did not even address the subject of autism. Why should we bother with you if you cannot even keep up with the current discussion, which is about Hyman and cancer research?

Chris: I wasn’t aware of the newer article on Hyman. I don’t spend much time on the Internet. I know this article is old, but I’ve just discovered it today, and I felt inclined to comment. Had I been aware of the newer article, I would have commented there. I was more interested in a broader discussion of the relative merits and drawbacks of alternative medicine, which I think is deeply relevant to this topic–the author of this article dismisses Hyman’s work, and by extension functional and alternative medicine as a whole, as a “quacktastic woo-fest,” which I think is a dangerously limited viewpoint. Respectful discussion, not sarcastic verbal sparring, is what I was aiming for.
Well, I’m actually not sure why I decided to comment in the first place. And I don’t feel particularly inclined to condense my sentiments into a series of convenient emoticons that any Web-browser can decipher at a glance. If anyone would like to read what I wrote and respond to it thoughtfully, respectfully, intelligently, etc., I’d enjoy hearing what they have to say. Otherwise I’ll simply take my leave.

Depends on how readable it is afterwards.

But if you’d like to get into a general discussion of CAM, then (a) this is the wrong thread to do it in and (b) you would be well-served to read through some of the archives – you can click on the category names at the top of the post for a listing – in order to reduce redundancy.

Aldous:

wasn’t aware of the newer article on Hyman. I don’t spend much time on the Internet. I know this article is old, but I’ve just discovered it today, and I felt inclined to comment. Had I been aware of the newer article, I would have commented there.

Some basic rules before commenting on a blog or forum:

1) If you find an article through Google, before commenting go to the first page and see what is under discussion.

2) Get to know the place, lurk for a while. Just like Scott mentioned.

3) Become familiar with the writing style, especially in how issues are discussed.

4) Try to proof read your comments (okay, we don’t all do that).

5) If you think you want to bring a subject up to the participants’ attention, please use the search box on the upper left side of this page to see if it has been discussed before.

6) If you get an error when posting a comment, before posting again… open another window to see if it was actually posted.

— Aldous:
“The sort of scientific research that I support attempts to identify the molecular mechanisms of the dysfunction, rather than evaluate the effectiveness of a synthetic agent in managing symptoms.”
I can’t agree more. I am on a quest, so to speak, to find why my daughter seems to be dealing with auto-immune diseases. The medications she has been prescribed produce marginal relief from the many symptoms she is plagued with-and then the symptoms return. (Two thyroid hormones for the hypothyroidism and Hashimoto’s, birth control pills and metformin for the PCOS, Miralax for the severe constipation, phentermine, chromium picolinate, potassium and a diuretic for weight issues, oral antibiotics and clindagel for acne, Lidex, Elocon for skin rashes, Flexeril for headaches, wellbutrin xl for depression, augmentin for sore throat, gluten free diet for intolerance–did not have biopsy)Yet she still has acne, she is still overweight, she is still depressed, her thyroid levels have NOT stabilized, she is STILL NOT ovulating and rashes/bumps/blisters still appear. I truly don’t know if we can even afford any more medicines. Some are quickly replaced with others, different dosages, etc. To only be stopped and prescribed something else.

I stumbled upon this site after looking for negative reviews of Dr. Hyman’s practices, as I sometimes do for prescribed medications and doctors she will be seeing. At this point, we are willing to do something as drastic as what he suggests since the meds just are NOT working to alleviate the problems.
She is a full time student majoring in finance/minor in acctg, divorced and living back at home. COBRA has run its course, she has no medical insurance. We are trying to find insurance coverage and will be sure her health remains the priority – she has seen five specialists within the last year – mostly referrals by other specialists.
At best, we are told “possibly genetic”. There may have been a “trigger” virus – EpsteinBarre? Mono? She has the antibody to EBV EBNA and EBV VCA. Her doctor had her tested due to her extreme fatigue, but since it was considered “old infection” the doctor didn’t prescribe anything until a violent cough appeared and would not subsist. She was then put on an ICS an inhaler with steroids, I believe for a short time.

We are lost at how to help her. She works with children part-time at a sports facility and has been complaining of joint pain recently. To where it is affecting her work. (I worry that it is a new auto-immune disease.) She follows the doctor’s advice to the letter. She comes home from work/school exhausted. Turns down most of her friend’s invites. We feel she is slowly falling apart.

Thank you Aldous. We will see if there is any changes once we begin this new venture for her. She will not be ending any of the meds prescribed unless that doctor advises.

We, as her parents, want only to see her healthy and well. Neither of us are dealing with any of the issues she has, nor are other family members. I tried conventional doctors, specialists, their tests and the medications. For over a year now. She has tested in the high range for wheat, gluten, casein/cows milk, soy and corn. One doctor asked her if she was autistic. I am not sure why.
I truly don’t know what else we can do for her, but why is she so sick all of the time? What does her future hold for her at this rate?
Didn’t mean to go on and on. I am desperate. I want her back to healthy–maybe something different can help? I don’t know, but I have to try. Thank you.