From Abracadabra to Zombies
reader
comments:
Alternative Health
Practices
4 Sep 2000
I was just looking at your interesting web site, "Skeptics Dictionary". While it is of course beneficial to scrutinize every new idea; and while real scientists never publish anything until they are certain, with many hard reproducible facts; still we have to remain always open-minded to new possibilities, or else all progress would stop.
With those caveats in mind, there are two things in general I noticed about your web site, which you might wish to address.
reply: Let me guess. I'm not a real scientist and I'm not open-minded.
First, in the field of alternative medicine, it should be noted that our current choice of medical therapies and drugs is not purely scientific, but based partly on the profit motives of large multinational corporations, as well as certain medical organizations. One only has to do research in modern biology for a very short time, to reach that conclusion.
reply: I see. And all those in alternative medicine, including those who produce the products they sell and promote, are not partly motivated by profit? What's the point. Who cares if anybody is partly motivated by profit? Why do you think the big pharmaceutical firms are pumping out alternative remedies as fast as they can label them? It's a multi-billion dollar a year business. You don't have to do research in biology to know these things.
Indeed, certain accepted medical practices today are quite inefficient and harmful, and could immediately (or soon) be replaced by "alternative safe treatments", were it not for vested interests.
For example, one group here and others worldwide have found a safe, efficient way to test for prostate cancer, which would eliminate perhaps 2 / 3 of urological surgery, which causes pain and misery to millions of older men. But there is a large vested interest in continuing such surgery, and progress is slow. Similarly with surgery and chemo for breast cancer in women, which after 20 years of unneeded pain has shown no beneficial value in controlled studies.
reply: So? What makes you think I agree with current medical practices regarding prostate testing and treatment?
In terms of pharmaceuticals, if a US patent cannot be obtained on any kind of medicine, the big drug companies will never test it formally, and patients will never receive it except from alternative doctors.
reply: This is nonsense. Big drug companies are now testing traditional herbs and remedies as they sell them. Read this article from US Business reporter. It is because of the profit motive that the large pharmaceuticals are jumping on the alternative bandwagon. It is partly the profit motive that is driving many traditional physicians and hospitals to offer "alternative" or "complementary" care. Do you think they are doing this because they have evidence such things as therapeutic touch have been validated by scientific studies? I don't.
For example, vitamin C and echinacea have been very valuable to people's health, yet there is a vested interest in other cold-flu remedies. Personally I take those two, plus glucosamine for soft-tissue repair (a common animal drug), and melatonin occasionally for stress relief. Those and other alternative products, to my mind, work beyond any shadow of a doubt; and indeed there are new scientific tests which would prove such in a large-scale trial, yet funding has to come from large drug companies: qui custodies custodiere?
reply: Thanks for the free medical advice, but not everybody agrees with your assessment of vitamin C. (update: Oct 11, 2001, a new study from Australia [Medical Journal of Australia 2001; 175:359-362] finds vitamin C worthless in preventing colds.) Furthermore, as long as there is scientific testing of the substances you mention, they are not "alternative" remedies. Many folk remedies turn out to have some merit, but until scientific testing is done, to recommend them is "alternative."
Meanwhile other dangerous drugs (e.g. warfarin-coumarin for blood thinning, pain killers for back pain) are given routinely, often with 3-5% lethal side effects due to bleeding or long-term use (my father nearly died last year from an aneurysm caused by warfarin).
reply: So? What's your point? Do you expect medical science to be infallible? Do you expect me to evaluate every questionable medical practice as a matter of fairness and completeness? Some medical practices may be stupid and unjustified, but unless they make claims based on metaphysics or occult assumptions, they are outside the purview of my stated purpose and interest.
In summary, as a first point, your web site does not seem to reflect accurately the current situation in medical research, that professionals see every day. There is no reason a priori to think that an "alternative cure" will be bad, while an "accepted cure" will be good. Every situation or therapy has to be judged on its own merits, as to how well it produces results without ill effect.
reply: I agree, but there is no reason my website should reflect the current situation in medical practice.
As a second brief point, I do not seem to see the same rigorous skepticism on your web site, when applied to "conventional" scientific theories as to "paranormal" ones. For example, as someone knowledgeable in the area, I would tend to believe in at least some paranormal phenomena, when compared to the "Big Bang" theory of cosmology or the "quark-gluon" theory of particle physics. If you are not familiar with such academic theories, or say with "renormalization" in QED, or "Lorentz covariance" in relativity, I advise you to investigate those well-accepted subjects further, in order to find additional evidence for poorly-supported group beliefs, which can add to the substance of your dictionary and make it more complete.
reply: I have not set out to be critical of "theories" or "medicine". I have set out to offer skeptical arguments and references to occult, supernatural, paranormal and pseudoscientific notions. Whenever a traditional medical treatment or theory is based on paranormal or metaphysical claims, I will be the first to rip into it. If you want a website that offers skeptical analyses of scientific theories and inferences from empirical data, you should start your own. That is not what I want to do. I have no idea why you think I should want to do this, except that you do not like the fact that I criticize "alternative", i.e., unscientific and pseudoscientific, thinking.
To conclude, as a second point: logical skepticism is fine, but it should be applied objectively to conventional peer-reviewed science, as well as that which appears less secure. Lack of research is no excuse, because I am sure you must have researched carefully all of the other subjects in your dictionary, before posting such severe criticisms!
reply: Get off your horse and get a life.
The motto of any true scientist is "nullia in verba": not
to take anyone's word for it, no matter how authoritative they appear. Or
alternatively, "there is no error which has not had its
Professors." --John Locke, 1690.
Horace Drew, a professional scientist
reply: You're right about one thing, anyway.
02 Aug 1999
Perhaps it's not worth the effort, but an entry on the basic fallacy of
the "doctors and pharmaceutical companies are conspiring to keep my
miracle cure off the market" bull that we hear all the time might be
an idea.
1. Doctors and their families get cancer, low back pain, go bald, etc. at the same rate as everyone else. 2. So do pharmaceutical company employees and their families. 3. Both pay the same insurance rates as everyone else. 4. Both like to save money, same as everyone else. 5. Nobody gets issued a magic talisman to protect them from exposures to HIV, Hepatitis C, or any other hazards.
I know it seems obvious, but my conversations with people indicate
that no one ever thinks thinks about such things.
Cheryl Hoffman
14 Aug 1999
I'm skeptical of your skepticism! On pseudosciences you failed to mention
modern medicine. Correctly prescribed medicine is the 4th leading killer
in America. Ok, homeopathy might seem like quackery to you, but how about
some balance buddy? Spend some time being skeptical about what is in front
of you. Are you paid by the American Medical Association?
Jahmbo
reply: Unfortunately, I'm not paid by anybody. The misleading statistic you mention has been irresponsibly passed on by the mass media. My comments on it may be found at: Mass media bunk
22 Apr 1998
Last night I heard about a new alternative treatment (or, as I call
it, voodoo) that sounds like something for the Dictionary (of which I've
been a follower for months).
My sister-in-law has a bone marrow disease called ITP [Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura is an autoimmune disorder]. She is also obsessed with being thin, even though she's a rail already. Her traditional doctor prescribed cortisone, I believe, [corticosteroids are part of the first line treatment of IPP] which would have the side effect of causing weight gain. Since that is not acceptable, she is going to an acupuncturist who has her using some wacky therapy at home three times a day. She takes some herbs which, I'm told, smell somewhat like pot, rolls them into a joint, lights it, but instead of smoking it, she -- get this -- points the lighted end at certain parts of her body. With a straight face, she says that pointing this stinky joint at her big toe (right or left is irrelevant) will directly affect her spleen. She also named other extremities that "rule" internal organs. The herb is called amoxi-something.
Sorry my details are sketchy but I had to walk away from her before
I started screaming at her. Any of this ring a bell with you?
Please don't use my name if you publish.
reply: My source (David Ehrensperger, an aromatherapist--see next letter ) tells me that your sister-in-law is being treated with "moxibustion." My Webster's dictionary tells me that "moxa" is an escharotic (a caustic which produces scabbing or crusting when applied to a wound or burn). In Japan, mogusa (moxa) is made from the yomigi plant. Here, leaves from mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris) or the wormwood tree (Artemisia chinensis) are usually used, according to Jack Raso. According to Mr. Ehrensperger, moxibustionists do touch the body with moxa, and do not, as you described, point the burning mass at various body parts. (Maybe your sister's "therapist" is practicing sympathetic magic.)
Moxibustion is often used in conjunction with acupuncture, another swell treatment for serious diseases. The chance that burning herbs will harm your sister-in-law are slim, but they are not likely to help her condition, either.
17 Nov 1997
I was fascinated and refreshed by The Skeptic's Dictionary. My parents-in-law use only alternative medicine to treat their two young children who have muscular dystrophy, a concept which scares and angers me. I have been excluded from the family because of my lack of belief in these treatments which do not give any proof of their ability to heal. It was great to be able to read some published information to back up what I have always believed to be true.
Their latest cure is called 'Neuro-skeletal dynamics', which consists of touching pressure points on the back in order to send messages to the brain's map of the body, which will then restore the body to the condition in which it functions best. They also see another alternative therapist who claims to be able to control all of the body's functions through pressing the navel.
What I find fascinating about these alternative therapies is that they all contain just a pinch of medical or scientific fact which, to the uneducated, is enough to convince them of their validity. Alternative medicines uses phrases like "the body system" which sound sort-of medical or scientific but which is "fuzzy."
Anyway thanks for giving me some concrete information on a topic which I have always found really infuriating.
Kristin
reply: Many believers in "alternative" health care become so devoted to their various herbs and practices that the herbs and plants become like sacraments and the practices like rituals in a religion.
19 Nov 1997
You are completely correct when you say that it's like a religion.
In fact my in-law's have replaced their religion with spiritual healers,
which seems to go along with their belief in the alternative medicines.
What I find most annoying about the whole situation is that I am a professional in the disability service field and also have a strong medical background, so I can pick the differences between medical science and quackery. It is incredible frustrating to me to see two young children who are going to have a shortened lifespan anyway be denied the medical help that could at least help to make their time more comfortable.
I have come to the conclusion that this is their coping mechanism,
and that they are desperately clinging to any glimmer or hope that they
can find. Ultimately they are avoiding the issue but for now these beliefs
are the 'band-aid' which is their temporary solution.
Kristin
note: the following is one of several I've received from someone who identifies himself only as Doc6262@aol.com. From what he's said in some of his notes, I think he's a chiropractor...at least that's the only kind of doctor he's had kind words for so far.
22 Jan 1997
How come there aren't more articles on the ill effects of traditional
medicine?? I'm willing to bet that most people don't realize that a person
dies every 8 minutes directly due to Medical physicians!
reply: It would have been nice if you had provided the source of this startling statistic.
Let's do a piece on "Prozac" for instance......
reply: You might be happy to know that today's [Jan 23, 1997] newspaper has a story about Prozac: a new study has found no sign that taking Prozac during pregnancy can harm a woman's unborn child. Contact Dr. Gideon Koren of the University of Toronto for more information. Or read the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, if you're truly interested. I imagine, however, you are referring to stories about people who kill while on Prozac. It is true that there have reports in the mass media about the dangers of Prozac. However, there have also been reports in the mass media about the dangers of silicon breast implants. There is another side to these reports which rarely gets reported. For instance, the scientific studies done on the health of women with breast implants versus those without them does not support the claim that breast implants are a significant causal factor in female ill health. People have killed while on Prozac. People have killed while not on Prozac. Prozac is taken by over 12,000,000 people a year. The percentage who go berserk and kill is rather small, just as it is in the population which does not take Prozac. Plus, those who are given Prozac are sometimes severely disturbed before taking it. Those who go berserk may have done so had they not taken Prozac and visited their local chiropractor or naturopath instead. Would you blame chiropractic or naturopathy for the berserk behavior just because it occurred after a visit to a chiropractor or naturopath?
...or maybe about getting the wrong leg cut off during surgery,
reply: These types of malpractice are mentioned in the article on alternative medicine.
....or possibly the removal of tonsils ( the immune system's first line of defense).
reply: Your point, I take it, is that traditional medicine has frequently advocated procedures or practices which not only did not improve health but made matters worse. You are correct.
I mean come on let's show the tragedies that are caused daily, by
MD's who could care less about the patient and more about the disease!!!
Doc6262@aol.com
reply: That seems like a job for someone of your disposition. Just remember, should you ever need brain or bypass surgery, or insulin for your diabetes, your doctor may not be a chiropractor or naturopath and may not look kindly upon your slanders. She may turn you into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Here is another missive from Doc6262:
January 31, 1997, page 1 of the USA Today quotes sources at the U.S.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention stating "Nearly all cases
of
polio since 1980 were caused by the oral polio vaccine".
The oral vaccine contains a weakened polio virus intended to stimulate
immunity without causing the disease.
reply: I suppose the good doctor takes this as further proof of medical
murder. Actually, it demonstrates a rather common error many people make:
statistics need a reference point or standard in order to understand their
significance. How many cases of polio would there have been had the polio
vaccine not been used?
9 Feb 1997
I think the only fair way to test the validity of "scientific" medicine
is with double blind studies. Your use of a friend's name who died of a
treatable form of cancer after submitting to a naturopath is not skeptical
enough! How many cancer victims die every year while using the approved
methods of the "scientific" community? Cancer is on the increase.
reply: The naturopath did not diagnose cancer. He diagnosed something benign and treated accordingly. Had he suspected cancer, he probably would have sent her to a traditional medical doctor. I have tried to explain this elsewhere, but here goes again. No doubt there are some naturopaths who are better healers than some MDs. But, naturopaths should not be compared to medical doctors when the issue is naturopathy vs. medical science. Naturopathy is based upon a questionable assumption: that healing should be by a "natural" process. Medical science is based upon the same assumptions all the sciences are based upon. To prefer naturopathy to medical science is to prefer quackery to science. I never claim that quackery can't sometimes have good results. Nor do I claim that science is infallible. To expect me to be as skeptical of medical science as I am of naturopathy, homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine, therapeutic touch, aromatherapy, etc., is unreasonable. I am not skeptical of these alternative health practices because they are fallible, but because they are based upon false or questionable assumptions and generally do not follow scientific methods to establish beliefs. It does not follow from my criticism of alternative health practices that I think traditional medicine is flawless. I do not criticize alternative health practices because their practitioners err or misdiagnose. I criticize them because I believe they are fundamentally unsound. It does not follow that I believe traditional medicine is infallible. I would criticize traditional medicine if it were fundamentally flawed, i.e., if it were based upon false or questionable assumptions. Now, there may be specific procedures which most medical doctors follow or recommend which turn out to be harmful or useless. Nevertheless, I would not reject all medicine because of errors by medical doctors. It would be foolish to reject science because of errors by scientists. It is also foolish to accept alternative medicine because it "works." Yielding results you are satisfied with is not what is meant by "works" in science. Placebos "work." Cures of misdiagnoses "work." Like you say, the only fair way to test the validity of "scientific" medicine is with double blind studies. That's how we find out what "works" in science.
While I truly appreciate the skeptic's philosophy, it would seem that it may be more of a bias against "traditional" healing practices in favor of the "modern" university approach. Yet many of our prescription drugs are discovered by investigating the "traditional" folk remedies.
reply: Yes, and many folk remedies don't really work and science is a process of testing what does and doesn't work. Traditional medicine is not opposed to folk medicine, but it does not assume that the folk remedies are necessarily correct. If by "modern university approach" you mean the approach of science, of tentatively accepting claims and testing hypotheses, then by all means that is the approach of the skeptic.
The protective sanction of 'bad' medicine by the university/medical
"profession" is the major force driving the alternative medicine market.
The outrageous prices of the "services" offered by MDs, the pharmaceutical
industry, and killing zones referred to as hospitals are the real problem.
This inhuman "slaughter house" industry is regulated/driven by the profits
of the insurance industry; not scientific medicine.
john pash
reply: I'm sure you can back up these claims with evidence. I'm also sure that when you need a liver transplant you won't check into a hospital nor will you take insulin if you develop diabetes. Anyway, I recently received a letter from a man worried about his 97 year old grandfather who was shelling out $5,000 for chelation therapy. Does that sound reasonable to you? I think you should not overlook in your inventory of horrors the fact that traditional medicine cannot cure everybody's illnesses, much less even diagnose what is ailing many people. Those are reasons many seek alternatives. Science has no answers for them and they are understandably desperate and vulnerable.
more reader comments on alternative health practices
Alternative Health
Practices
When you purchase something from Amazon.com through one of our links we earn a commission, which helps pay for the maintenance of this site.
* AmeriCares *
