Medical Science

Everything is moving so fast. The media reports on new research, studies and discoveries daily. People are living longer, healthier lives due in part to medical advancements.

 

I expect that this endless parade of seemingly miracle cures drives people to look beyond medical science and put their faith in so many unproven remedies. Scientific-sounding sales pitches, ancient wisdom or endorsements by friends, relatives and celebrities lure them in. Then all it takes is a little placebo effect to convince them that they have made a great discovery, and they too spread the word. 

 

Americans throw away countless millions of dollars in pursuit of relief from their latest aches and pains. Here are a couple more examples from reliable sources.

 

The first is about acupuncture. Many people believe acupuncture is an effective and safe alternative to mainstream medicine. Safety is not really the issue here. In the category of complimentary and alternative medicine, most of the pills and procedures are safe because they don’t do anything. The question in this case is whether it works.

 

If acupuncture works, it seems reasonable to assume that acupuncture points really exist and that experts or experienced practitioners can find them. Otherwise it would be random needling, a technique that would fly in the face of a theory based on the existence of qi and its meridians accessible at particular acupuncture points.

 

Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies after looking at 14 separate studies found “’considerable variation’ in localization of acupoints among qualified medical acupuncturists.” They admit that accurate point location is a significant factor in effective treatment, but the various methods of finding them yield highly inconsistent results. 

Furthermore, my original source points out that the depth of the needles to access the point is not specified; and if the points were real, “wouldn’t they vary in location [from person to person] just as other anatomical structures” like blood vessels do? So many unanswered questions throw considerable doubt on the practice.

 

The second example concerns chiropractors charging thousand of dollars, not covered by insurance, for spinal decompression on a special device to alleviate back pain. One such device is “a mechanical table attached to Space Age-looking controls that its manufacturer claims can stretch the disks of the vertebrae.” (Medieval torture chambers had a similar table but without the space age-looking controls.) 

 

A group called Fair Warning, “based on review of lawsuits, scientific studies, government documents, chiropractic websites and interviews with experts, found that the claims of success for spinal decompression stretch the truth,” and that the treatment “has never been proven [to be effective] in scientifically rigorous studies.”

 

While Internet advertising and participating chiropractors rave about success, insurance companies describe the machines as experimental and investigative. While the promoters boast of success rates of 86% to 90%, investigators found their studies “lacked scientific rigor” and that “no definite conclusions could be drawn.”

 

A professor from Oregon Health and Science University and an expert on the subject of lower back pain says, “Eight in 10 people with back pain get better on their own.” The marginal difference with this machine, even if true, hardly seems like a good investment, especially since it has also resulted in serious injury.

 

Both cases are scientifically very dubious. Unfortunately, science means nothing to Americans unless it supports their preconceived notions. Climate change is real, based on science; but nuclear power is dangerous, based on emotion.

Note: To receive in your email a very informative free weekly newsletter on the latest health scams, sign up at this link.

One Last Time: Alternative Medicine

There are certain subjects that have come up time and again over the last 9 years. The main benefit of a behavioral approach is that so many seemingly diverse behaviors can be grouped into categories or dimensions to make sense of the consequences that arise from the resulting choices. 

About five weeks ago, in August, I wrapped up the subject of unfounded fears over GMOs with a One Last Time entry. Today the subject is the very broad area of alternative medicine, which I have described as magic pills and miracle cures. Just typing “magic pill” in the search box at the top left corner of the screen will reveal about 20 entries on this subject from vitamins to caffeinated underwear. In these and several other cases I pointed out the fallacies in their advertising and directed attention to the legally required disclaimer: “These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."

Recently, I found this informative site with an excellent summary.

First they list the various aliases used instead of alternative including: esoteric, complementary, holistic, integrative or natural medicine. It includes such a variety of treatments that “generally accepted definitions do not exist.” 

An incomplete list includes: acupuncture, anthroposophical medicine, applied kinesiology, aromatherapy, autologous blood therapy, Ayurvedic medicine, Bach flower remedies, bioresonance, chelation therapy, chiropractic, colonic irrigation, detox therapies, dietary supplements, energy healing, herbal medicine, homeopathy, iridology, Kampo medicine, macrobiotic, magnet therapy, mind-body therapies, music therapy, neural therapy, ozone therapy, reflexology, Reiki, shiatsu and Traditional Chinese Medicine. I have discussed many of these elsewhere, here and here, for example, but some I’ve never heard of. 

Since they have no scientific backing, how do they lure in customers? “The realm of EM (Esoteric Medicine) is riddled with fallacies which confuse patients and consumers and are used regularly to undermine critical thinking.” In other words, they trick people. The most prevalent and important of these fallacies from the site are summarized below.

The “appeal to popularity” or “appeal to authority” tries to substitute popularity or the opinion of respected people for scientific evidence. But “medicine is no popularity contest” and “even people of high standing make mistakes.”

The post hoc fallacy wrongly assumes “an event ‘X’ that is preceded by another event ‘Y’ must be caused by ‘Y’. If the rooster didn’t crow, the sun would not come up. If the child skipped vaccinations, he would not have autism. (No and no.) It is not true for individuals or for groups.

Many of these interventions rely on the placebo effect. Scientists are just beginning to understand the power of the mind to heal the body. This effect is present whether the medicine is real or not. Likewise, sometimes people just get better on their own. These alternative treatments take advantage of these facts to gather supporters and celebrity endorsements without bothering with scientific evidence.

Using an appeal to tradition, citing a long history is another fallacy, assuming that if it has passed the test of time, it must be effective and safe. This may be good reason to conduct research, and if the argument is valid, the results will be favorable. But long history is no substitute for evidence. Many treatments were applied in the past that would be unconscionable today. Contrary to some popular opinion, ancient Chinese is not a code for safe and effective.

The article gives a long explanation of why EM is unethical by medical standards. “Informed consent is rarely possible in the realm of EM.” Often there is not a professional diagnosis.

“Another fallacy holds that EM defies science or extends beyond the boundaries of science as it is currently understood. Therefore, proponents claim, it cannot be tested in the same way as one would test conventional treatments.” 

Finally, because it is natural, it is assumed to be harmless. “Nature is pictured as benign and natural remedies are therefore not just intrinsically superior but also safer.” This shows a limited viewpoint and a basic misunderstanding of nature. Hurricanes, tornados and blizzards are natural. No one would argue that tobacco is safe because it is natural. To be enamored with words like “natural” and “non-chemical” or the phrase “available without a prescription” is to succumb to deceptive advertising.

These tools are used to “mislead the public such that even the most extravagant absurdities of EM might appear more plausible. Collectively they help foster and perpetuate a culture of unreason that is essential for EM to thrive.”

Ads for a vast number of bogus alternative medical products and services have cropped up since the advent of the COVID-19, faster than the authorities can alert the public or warn the purveyors about their illegal activity. The best defense is: Don’t be a sucker!

The truth is there is no such thing as alternative medicine (no matter what name it goes by); there is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn’t work. All these tricks, alluring words and excuses do not change that fact. Lack of critical thinking in this area can lead to a waste of money, but worse, real harm to you or your family.

Is Chiropractic Effective Against COVID-19?

Everyone wants to take advantage of the pandemic; some offer products and services that lean toward quackery and others less so, but they are trying to lure in customers by playing on fear. Sometimes the connection is dubious. For example, CNN reports that the World Health Organization (WHO) “called on tobacco and nicotine industries across the world to stop taking advantage of the global pandemic and marketing directly to children and teens.” (How anyone can use the pandemic to put a positive spin on teen smoking is very puzzling, but WHO is worried.)

As another example, many chiropractors are posting information on their websites similar in wording to this one: “Regular chiropractic adjustments have been proven to boost your immune system. This is accomplished by improving the state of the nervous system which in turn improves the immune system.”

The International Chiropractic Association (ICA) found these claims troubling. Concerned with the credibility of their practice, they tried to clarify in March with a 15-page bulletin stating in part: “There are no vaccines, no drugs, no natural remedies, no alternative therapies that have been tested and the outcomes peer reviewed to meet any credible evidence-based standard in science. This includes chiropractic.” They had “previously provided clear reminders to its members of the importance of not advertising” such abilities.

Where would hundreds of chiropractors get this idea? They believe that straightening a patient’s spine positively affects the nervous system by reducing stress. Stress reduction is loosely linked to immunity. As explain in the Annals of Vertebral Subluxation, which tracks chiropractic research, “It is well established that the nervous system controls and coordinates all functions and systems of the human body including immunity and the immune system.” This theoretical connection feeds an assumption that it is ethical to advertise chiropractic as a treatment and prevention during the pandemic. But it’s not.

This train of thought – less stress to nervous system to immunity – has never been proven to exist. This site quotes another ICA report warning, “there exists no credible, scientific evidence that would permit claims of effectiveness for conferring or enhancing immunity through spinal adjustment/manipulation to be made in communications by chiropractors.” Furthermore, last month “more than 150 chiropractic researchers from eleven countries criticized [any suggestion] that chiropractic care (primarily spinal manipulation), can have a meaningful impact on immune function.”

At the end of the 15-page ICA report, they make the lack of evidence clear by asking for more funding to support “necessary clinical research required to validate the role of doctors of chiropractic in promoting health and vitality by stimulating a healthy immune response.”

As these renegade chiropractors advertise viral immunity, along with several other questionable benefits, they undermine the credibility of the profession, providing more ammunition to the naysayers. Numerous skeptical publications, including this one, describe chiropractic as teetering precariously on the edge between science and pseudoscience.

Such advertising trying to get away with unsubstantiated claims, reinforces the need for critical thinking. Many chiropractors, naturopaths and others claim all sorts of peripheral health benefits. Patients walk in expecting miracles and walk out with placebo-effect satisfaction telling their friends. But wild claims and customer endorsements don’t constitute evidence. Eventually, the professional associate must move to protect the reputation of the profession before the FTA steps in to protect consumers. But none of this would be necessary, if critical thinking prevailed.