The “Alternative Medicine” scam

[Cruella]

Seriously, I was, like, totally in my office when you posted those links, so couldn't click on any of them at the time of posting. But, when the first link anyone posts is Wikipedia then my initial reaction is scepticism. It was intended as advice for being taken seriously in the future, rather than a rebuke about posting in general, I couldn't give two hoots about the moderation here.

And annoying? Yes, I guess I am. Couldn't give two hoots about that, either. But at least I'm not a banned poster. Buh-bye!

[NotATerrorist]

Hey, resistance is never futile, but don't underestimate the borg, right?

I only posted wiki because it has links to several studies and shows clearly in the article that not only is it not silly or nutty or whacko but good science that is under-reported. also.. is it just me or can you no longer edit most wiki articles?

[Cruella]

This thread isn't about Wiki. I'll have more to say when I've read those articles.

[shawmutt]

----------

Whose business is it that certain people are willing to experiment with their medical approaches?

You answered your own question.

I argue that its no one's business who pays for what and what they are happy with provided the claims are not fraudulent.

I argue that the claims made by faith-based medicines are fraudulent. The "lack of funds" for research is b.s. Faith-based scam artists realize this, so they make up their own publications and sometimes even their own research companies (again, see Airborne) to fool folks into thinking their medicines are good.

"Lack of side effects" is another b.s. claim. If a medicine can affect the physiology, it has side effects. To claim otherwise is to admit the medicine is inert.

"All natural", "chemical free", etc., basically all the claims made by the faith-based industry to codify "healthier than mainstream medicine" are also b.s. Whether taking an "herbal supplement" or prescription drug, the principle is the same. The person is relying on the chemical contained within the product to produce a physiological change.

Furthermore, and this is my main issue with faith-based medicine, it doesn't stop with one person. Often it affects the person's children, friends, etc. A fear of evidence-based medicine can cause, for instance, a measles outbreak. A reliance on faith-based medicine can result in a baby dying of AIDS.

Honestly, things that don't affect others don't bother me. Unfortunately, an action that is truly autonomous is a rare action indeed. It's up to us as individuals to decide what actions require intervention. I feel that the scams perpetuated by those peddling faith-based medicine require intervention.

Aside from the obvious harm it causes (see my link "What's the Harm?), faith-based medicine also fosters anti-scientific thinking, and withers critical thinking skills.

Established cancer treatments have a dismal statistical record of efficacy and few patients are made aware of this.

I disagree that few people are made aware of their prognosis regarding cancer. Review Dadoo's post, for instance. He was given 4 months to live, and how did he know this? Documented evidence provided the answers he was looking for (for better or worse). I'm wondering where you get the idea that few patients are made aware of their prognosis.

In any case, faith-based medicine offers no record of failures, only testimonials of success. This creates the cognitive bias that faith-based medicine is better than evidence-based medicine, and allows scam artists to continue selling snake oil and cure-all tonics.

but it certainly does cut into the medical establishment's monopoly on expensive treatements.

Here's where critical thinking starts to exit out the back door. The expensive, evidence-based treatments are expensive for a couple reasons. For one, the research, development, testing, and production of these drugs is expensive. For two, making drugs is a business. Folks invested capital and want to make a return.

Which leads to the critical thinking part. How much money would people pay for a medicine that is “all natural”, 100% effective, and 100% safe? No side effects, no addiction, no withdrawal? All this in a product that would cost pennies to produce? Yet there are no rich folks out there who are willing to invest a couple million to do studies and get the medicine FDA approved? Are you really trying to argue that the tens of billions of dollars made in the faith-based medicine industry isn't enough to get the science done? None of this raises a few red flags?

Do me a favor, and let's see if we can find some middle ground. Go the the What's the Harm website, and review the list of faith-based medicines on the main page. Are there any remedies on that list that you find completely bunk? Which ones?

It is true that these doctors do promote their own practices, but they are all board-certified licensed physicians whose clinical experience enables them to use the best of alternative treatments in addition to established mainstream medicine. I don't see why anyone would consider such conscientiousness as quackery.

Appeal to authority, first of all. Board certified licensed physicians can be quacks too--they lose touch with the need for evidence in medicine and instead start to rely on "gut feelings".

In any case, I consider it quackery because there is no empirical data to support their claims.
----------

I largely think Atkins was a quack, and peddled hugely in quackery - however qualified he was - but I'll have a look at those links later, thanks.

Agreed, and a good example of why a person's credentials does not replace evidence.

[The Black Ghost]

Placebo effect. The mind is half the battle for any malady--if the brain cannot function to its maximum capacity or if certain chemicals like those released by constant and prolonged fear or negative feelings keep up for a long time, the body has a much worse chance of suceeding. These alternative healing methods are very real, and very helpful sometimes--they are more like therapy than "cures". Most dont work scientifically, but still show results nonetheless, ironically.

Herbal medicine, also, is very real and much of it works--although there are often unforseen side effects. It is not endorsed or supported officially because companies make profits on medicine, herbal medicine would ruin that, and also because there are risk factors involved.

[Cruella]

Yet, if herbal medicine actually worked, tests would prove it, and they'd make more money....

[KSoDBartman]

Out of all the links he posted (I admit, I didn't click on a single one), the one that jumped out at me was the vaccines-autism "link" which has been so thoroughly disproven as to relegate anyone who would suggest it as evidence of anything to the credibility company of Harold Hill.

Incidentally, shawmutt, I notice you linked to an article from Science Based Medicine. Do you frequent that blog often or were you just directed there from my earlier link? One of the bloggers from that site, Dr. Steve Novella, runs the New England Skeptical Society and produces a weekly podcast called The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. Given your statements in this thread, I think you'd enjoy it very much.

[shawmutt]

Incidentally, shawmutt, I notice you linked to an article from Science Based Medicine. Do you frequent that blog often or were you just directed there from my earlier link? One of the bloggers from that site, Dr. Steve Novella, runs the New England Skeptical Society and produces a weekly podcast called The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. Given your statements in this thread, I think you'd enjoy it very much.

I'm a long time listener of the Skeptic's Guide, in fact it helped me along a skeptical path. I post on occasion on their forum, but it's blocked from work (evidently skepchick, the forum's host, has some nudity or something) where I do most of my web surfing. I work in biotech, making vaccines, and the podcast made me aware of all the wackos out there and the wacky claims.

I just started reading that Science-Based medicine blog, among others. I also just started a Skeptic's Tool box on our Social Groups here: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/group.php?groupid=9. Feel free to join up.

[KSoDBartman]

I thought about it more after I posted and figured you probably already did listen to it, since the odds are probably pretty slim that you'd coincidentally reference the measles outbreak that was mentioned on last week's show, and also bring up the AIDS denialist chick mentioned on this week's show. Like Steve said last week (and this week): those types are the worst because they've got body counts.

I've cruised the Skepchick forums once in a while but never joined -- they seem to not talk about current events much as far as politics goes, so I'm not as interested in it as I could be.

[Osborn F Enready]

I have used, and still use a variety of health food products that are not FDA approved, and I tested each and every one I use to see if noticed improvement, before I continued taking them.

I have yet to come across a major name sports supplement that didn't do what it claimed to do, within reason.

Whey protein for example?

The FDA is lacking, as does their "timeframe" for testing new products.

[commonsense]

Quote by: commonsense
Whose business is it that certain people are willing to experiment with their medical approaches?

Response by: Shawmutt:

You answered your own question.

Evidently you care to make it your business. Should we all rest easier that Shawmutt is on the job?

Appeal to authority, first of all. Board certified licensed physicians can be quacks too--they lose touch with the need for evidence in medicine and instead start to rely on "gut feelings".

In any case, I consider it quackery because there is no empirical data to support their claims.

Wrong. the physicians I mentioned have large practices, even "centers" with many physicians that they direct that see a large number of patients.
They dont have to "appeal" to authority, they have the authority, they are highly accredited medical "establishment" doctors who are augmenting accepted treatments, not replacing them. Don't try to de-rail the argument by lumping them in with "faith healers" (although I argue that provided they dont make false claims, its no one's business someone try them). furthermore, not that it would help me any, there have been countless accepted scientific studies acknowledging the "placebo effect" and "positive thinking" etc.

As far as "evidence" goes, the sites I linked have pages showing their longitudinal results on populations of patients they have treated with their combined vitamin/medical approaches which, because of the lenght of time they have been in practice and keeping records very often exceed the size of dubious, limited "studies" run by drug companies and universities which the FDA has accepted for approval of drugs. These conscientious "complementary physicians" have contributed greatly "to what works" which has gradually (reluctantly, I'll say) become part of accepted knowledge in conjunction with standard medical advice...

Great case in point is the late Robert Atkins, MD who was my personal physician.
Anyone who calls him a quack is uninformed.
His major contributions to mainstream medicine are the understanding of metabolic processes of various nutritional components and the debunking of the "cholesterol myth" to which Big Pharma still clings as source of profits from unnecessary drug sales.
Also, Atkins is responsible for identifying many food sensitivies and food allergies as the cause of certain diseases, only recently, very reluctantly, has the American Diabetes Association adopted the basic premise of Atkins' diet pioneered in the 1970s as a major preventative measure against adult onset diabetes.

[Cruella]

Actually, in the UK for dietary control of diabetes, they use the GI index, which is similar to Atkins, but not based on the ketones theory that underpins much of what Atkins wrote, that's largely been discredited over here, though there has been some interesting research done on protein in the diet in the last couple of years.

I'm not saying there is no benefit whatsoever to alternative medicine, just that it does itself no favours by refusing to submit to the same regulation that conventional medicine has to go through. There are pluses and minuses to both sides of this.