It is spring and the “quackers” are here in the northeast…as well as lots of other places, I would assume. I am not talking about the ducks and the geese, although they are back in our skies and waters. I am not even talking about me, back and planning to write a lot more this spring if the craziness abates a little.
No, I am talking about the quacks, charlatans and snake oil salesmen who seem to haunt AMD and tease us with their “miracle cures”. You know, the “secret” discoveries that only they have made. The things the “short sighted” people at the FDA chose to ignore or denounce. The “100% cures” they want to sell us so that we can have “hope”.
I get very angry looking at the ads on Google. I don’t like to think of myself as a prey animal for these “people” ( and I use the term loosely). I prefer to be the predator. I like to think of myself as the wolf. The wolf scans for the best target for the hunt. He evaluates his odds of catching and killing his prey. He works with the pack on a common objective. The pack is persistent. The pack is relentless. They understand a successful hunt does not always mean a quick and easy kill.
I would like to think we are the pack. I know we are hungry for treatments for AMD. I would like to think we are cunning enough to pick good targets in our hunt for these treatments. I want to believe our hunger will not lead us to be deluded by some “quacker” offering empty promises …and a quick buck for himself.
To this end I found an article, excerpts of which I would like to share. The article is actually a book chapter from 2018. The title of the chapter is ‘Physical treatments for age-related macular degeneration’ and the book it is from is entitled Treatment for dry age-related macular degeneration and Stargardt disease: a systematic review. The authors are Waugh, Loveman and Colquill. It was published in the United Kingdom for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Sounds very official!
Waugh and his colleagues scoured the profession literature looking for promising research. They found a lot of bad science and a couple of treatments that were tested using good science and may have promise.
Going alphabetically, the first one reviewed was acupuncture. Looking over 37 years of research, spanning 1970 until 2007, the American Academy of Ophthalmology determined there was insufficient evidence to justify its use.
The studies found had used bad science. For example, they had not randomized their subjects. Without subject randomization, you have no way of knowing it is your treatment or some other factor that is responsible for the changes.
Waugh et al took 2008 to 2018 and looked at that research. They found two studies. Both of them were done using bad science. In one case, they did not offer their statistics for review. In another, there was no control group for comparison. Good science can stand up to peer scrutiny. In other words, if you don’t share your statistics, you are hiding something. No control group means the changes could have happened on their own without the treatment, and you have no way of knowing.
The bottom line on acupuncture for dry AMD treatment was thumbs down. In nearly 50 years of study, nobody has been able to prove it works. All of the “evidence” has been hearsay.
Ok, wolf pack, the hunt is on! To the letter B next time.
Written March 13th, 2020