Quackery, pseudoscience, and just generally bad information.

Saw that on FB this morning...bookmarked!

Thank you for the links. I've been looking for more anti-quackery/pro-science sites.

Respectful Insolence is a good blog too. I actually found sciencebasedmedicine.org through there.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

Posting so I can come back later for the article, but I'm SO glad that "Dr." Oz was mentioned. My husband used to be a die hard follower but has finally come to his senses. He was telling me this morning about seeing a feature on his show earlier in the week where one of the segments was talking about getting more veggies or something in your diet and the lady pulled out her "SlapChop" and said that one should use it to chop their veggies into smaller pieces as it aids in digestion. Ummm...unless you swallow your food whole, I'm pretty sure chewing should take care of that, lol.

I am all for evidence-based approaches to almost everything. However, in scrolling through the first 4 pages of SBM's blogs, it is clear he has an ax to grind about integrative medicine. Fair enough. The guy can't appreciate the benefits of a great massage. His loss.

My issue is that there is a lot going on in traditional medicine that should be addressed - including the pushing of pharmaceuticals on the medical community (docs too lazy to keep up with medical advances who rely on pharma sales reps for their information and treatment protocols) and the over-prescription of things like statins which were recently recommended for an astronomical percentage of the population by the American Heart Association. None of this is mentioned in those pages, but pose a far more catastrophic risk to people than reiki and acupuncture.

I am all for evidence-based approaches to almost everything. However, in scrolling through the first 4 pages of SBM's blogs, it is clear he has an ax to grind about integrative medicine. Fair enough. The guy can't appreciate the benefits of a great massage. His loss.

My issue is that there is a lot going on in traditional medicine that should be addressed - including the pushing of pharmaceuticals on the medical community (docs too lazy to keep up with medical advances who rely on pharma sales reps for their information and treatment protocols) and the over-prescription of things like statins which were recently recommended for an astronomical percentage of the population by the American Heart Association. None of this is mentioned in those pages, but pose a far more catastrophic risk to people than reiki and acupuncture.

The writers (there are several) do appreciate massage for what it is. They just object to the over the top claims that are made about it:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/massage-therapy-decreases-inflammation/

They have discussed statins:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/statins-the-cochrane-review/

Here they discuss the Pharmaceutical industry and what needs to change:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/bad-pharma-a-manifesto-to-fix-the-pharmaceutical-industry/

I also disagree that reiki and the like are relatively harmless. People who pursue alternative medicine often abandon science based medicine, and that is definitely harmful. My mother-in-law, for example, has started seeing a spiritualist for my sister-in-law, who has an as yet unidentified chronic pain condition. Since she started seeing this person, she's stopped taking Amy to the regular doctor and refuses to get her treatment from a specialist. This is not a good thing.

I also tend to be of the believe that misinformation is always bad. Even if it seems harmless on the surface.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/whats-the-harm/
http://quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/harmquack.html

Flaws with the medical or scientific community do not in any way, shape, or form validate pseudoscientific nonsense.

Or as someone once said: "The failures of modern medicine do not justify the use of alternative treatments anymore than plane crashes justify the use of flying carpets"
[/quote]

Agreed and I never implied otherwise. My issue is that he's using his intellectual capital (and blog platform) to focus on less significant issues like reiki and other small-scale pseudoscience while ignoring major issues within the "scientific" and medical community. Bias is still bias and he's got his own.

Flaws with the medical or scientific community do not in any way, shape, or form validate pseudoscientific nonsense.

Or as someone once said: "The failures of modern medicine do not justify the use of alternative treatments anymore than plane crashes justify the use of flying carpets"

Agreed and I never implied otherwise. My issue is that he's using his intellectual capital (and blog platform) to focus on less significant issues like reiki and other small-scale pseudoscience while ignoring major issues within the "scientific" and medical community. Bias is still bias and he's got his own.

I consider the normalization and integration of pseudoscience into medical practice to be an extremely significant and worrisome issue. I don't think it reveals bias, just a difference of opinion in which is more significant.

I am all for evidence-based approaches to almost everything. However, in scrolling through the first 4 pages of SBM's blogs, it is clear he has an ax to grind about integrative medicine. Fair enough. The guy can't appreciate the benefits of a great massage. His loss.

My issue is that there is a lot going on in traditional medicine that should be addressed - including the pushing of pharmaceuticals on the medical community (docs too lazy to keep up with medical advances who rely on pharma sales reps for their information and treatment protocols) and the over-prescription of things like statins which were recently recommended for an astronomical percentage of the population by the American Heart Association. None of this is mentioned in those pages, but pose a far more catastrophic risk to people than reiki and acupuncture.

You have a point, prescription drugs are often validated by studies funded by the company that will make profits from the drug, there is obviously a serious problem, and sites like drug watch are great, but there is just as serious of a problem with alternative medicine. I have used some alternative therapies to help me with my thyroid disease, this is why I take sub lingual B-12 every day for years and it does help, before that I had pins and needles problems in my hands/feet, probably from pernicious anemia. My primary doctor says since that works keep doing it, there is no harm. However, others I have tried were not good, so buyer beware and be careful what you put in your body, no matter what the source.

I consider the normalization and integration of pseudoscience into medical practice to be an extremely significant and worrisome issue. I don't think it reveals bias, just a difference of opinion in which is more significant.

Absolutely, especially when you have pseudoscientific claims about curing cancer that can actively prevent someone from getting real medical treatment.

I agree with both points here - wholeheartedly.

I would argue, however, that the vast majority of people will not be pursuing spiritual healing or reiki for cancer treatments. They will be following the advice of their doctors, who are very often blindly following recommendations based on pharma and flawed studies that are the basis of those websites you posted. Just at the blogger complains about a lack of consistency and quality with herbs, there is also a huge lack of consistency and quality in medical care/treatments. On balance, I think a bigger bang for the buck would be to address bigger issues like health care delivery vs. herbs. But the blogger probably doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him - the medical establishment.

I think it has been failures in the medical community that have motivated people to seek alternative therapies. Maybe they are barking up the wrong tree with herbs, acupuncture and the like, but the movement evolved for a reason. People were sick of their docs practicing defensive medicine.

When you have a medical community prescribing, willy nilly, Perc 30's, to former and active addicts, without ANY protocol in place to inquire of the patient about a history of addiction, you know there is a problem with modern medicine.

Thank goodness I never listened to the PCPs that tried to pressure me in the early 2000's to take statins for slightly elevated cholesterol (including 90 HDL). Even then, I wasn't buying the statin hype. Now we know that cholesterol is only a bit player in heart disease and that size of fat cells, c-reactive protein and other factors must be considered.

We are all in agreement about our dislike of medical quackery. I just think we may disagree about where more of it resides and the most impactful way to create awareness around it.

I consider the normalization and integration of pseudoscience into medical practice to be an extremely significant and worrisome issue. I don't think it reveals bias, just a difference of opinion in which is more significant.

Absolutely, especially when you have pseudoscientific claims about curing cancer that can actively prevent someone from getting real medical treatment.

I agree with both points here - wholeheartedly.

I would argue, however, that the vast majority of people will not be pursuing spiritual healing or reiki for cancer treatments. They will be following the advice of their doctors, who are very often blindly following recommendations based on pharma and flawed studies that are the basis of those websites you posted. Just at the blogger complains about a lack of consistency and quality with herbs, there is also a huge lack of consistency and quality in medical care/treatments. On balance, I think a bigger bang for the buck would be to address bigger issues like health care delivery vs. herbs. But the blogger probably doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him - the medical establishment.

I think it has been failures in the medical community that have motivated people to seek alternative therapies. Maybe they are barking up the wrong tree with herbs, acupuncture and the like, but the movement evolved for a reason. People were sick of their docs practicing defensive medicine.

When you have a medical community prescribing, willy nilly, Perc 30's, to former and active addicts, without ANY protocol in place to inquire of the patient about a history of addiction, you know there is a problem with modern medicine.

Thank goodness I never listened to the PCPs that tried to pressure me in the early 2000's to take statins for slightly elevated cholesterol (including 90 HDL). Even then, I wasn't buying the statin hype. Now we know that cholesterol is only a bit player in heart disease and that size of fat cells, c-reactive protein and other factors must be considered.

We are all in agreement about our dislike of medical quackery. I just think we may disagree about where more of it resides and the most impactful way to create awareness around it.

I guess I'm not following your point here. Yes, there are issues in the medical establishment, which the blog addresses (I posted a couple of examples above). I don't get why we need to choose which is worse though. Both are bad. Both should be addressed. Yes, the blog focuses on one more than the other because that's their area of interest, but I don't see any place where the writers claim that traditional medicine is beyond reproach.

You don't really seem to have an issue with what they're saying. You just think the main topic of the blog should be different? That seems kind of like saying we shouldn't bother trying to cure multiple sclerosis because we haven't cured colon cancer yet. Different researchers will tackle different diseases. Different science bloggers will want to tackle different aspects of science. If you're looking for someone who will focus on the pharmaceutical companies, Ben Goldacre is good.

We are all in agreement about our dislike of medical quackery. I just think we may disagree about where more of it resides and the most impactful way to create awareness around it.

I am not sure where you are getting this idea from.

Acrylics posted links to a number of articles about 'traditional' medicine from the same authors.

The reason why this article was posted here is due to the overwhelming number of times these people are quoted on here as they give alleged 'nutrition' advice.

I would argue, however, that the vast majority of people will not be pursuing spiritual healing or reiki for cancer treatments. They will be following the advice of their doctors, who are very often blindly following recommendations based on pharma and flawed studies that are the basis of those websites you posted.

Medications that are approved by the FDA must have two studies showing that they are at least as effective as current treatment. The studies are published in peer-reviewed journals and are subject to scrutiny by journal editors and expert reviewers. There *are* problems inherent in drug company funded studies (mostly in that negative studies are not published, not that the positive studies are flawed), however that does not mean that there is no scientific evidence behind the FDA approval process. Alternative therapies would need to show evidence that is as rigorously obtained to qualify as being based in science and worthy of being considered on the same level as allopathic treatments.

Just at the blogger complains about a lack of consistency and quality with herbs, there is also a huge lack of consistency and quality in medical care/treatments. On balance, I think a bigger bang for the buck would be to address bigger issues like health care delivery vs. herbs. But the blogger probably doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him - the medical establishment.

I think it has been failures in the medical community that have motivated people to seek alternative therapies. Maybe they are barking up the wrong tree with herbs, acupuncture and the like, but the movement evolved for a reason. People were sick of their docs practicing defensive medicine.

"defensive medicine" is a catch phrase. Please define what you mean by it and what place it has in this paragraph.

When you have a medical community prescribing, willy nilly, Perc 30's, to former and active addicts, without ANY protocol in place to inquire of the patient about a history of addiction, you know there is a problem with modern medicine.

Please cite evidence. The "medical community" is not prescribing opioids "willy nilly." There are physicians who overprescribe, but this does not justify this glaring oversimplification and overgeneralization to include the entire community of physicians. Also, this does not sound like "defensive medicine" as docs can get their DEA numbers revoked and also be sent to jail for overprescription of controlled substances.

Nice.

Bumping for links, and also because this is great information.

Great links!