here we go again...

Clever and witty, but hopelessly uninformed and unappealingly smug and superior. The facts about “proven” medical therapies: medical intervention and iatrogenic disease is the third leading cause of death in the United States. Emergency room physician David Newman, author of Hippocrates’ Shadow, looked at the data and says interventions harm four times more people each year than they help.

As to the “unproven” link between vaccines and autism, that’s a testament to the power of the medical PR machine. Mercury, long used in vaccines is a known neurotoxin, and even the National Institutes of Health has finally called for a long-overdue examination of the impact of neuro-toxic vaccine components such as mercury and aluminum. A CBS investigation reported that a US vaccine court awarded close to $2 billion in compensation to over 1,300 families claiming vaccine damages for children displaying classic symptoms of regressive autism since 1988.

And about “nutty loose cannon” vaccine deniers: give UBC’s Dr. Chris Shaw (Faculty of Medicine) a call. He says vaccines just don’t work very well without adjuvants such as aluminum, mercury or squalene, neither of which are safe in animals. The neurological damage he’s seen in the lab is the reason his daughter isn’t vaccinated. Check out what he has to say here: http://tinyurl.com/yb56urx

If vaccines are so safe...

Then why has the Government of Canada (or Harper's Government as he likes to call it) given the H1N1 vaccine makers immunity from litigation if there is fault to be found with the vaccine?

Caveat emptor

Ironically, the pharmaceutical industry is just a glorified naturopathic industry. Most pharmaceutical endeavours involve mining natural products for their medicinal properties and, if a patent can be derived, a potential medicine (complete with the much desired DIN number) is pursued.

Think of it as bread mould (penicillin) writ large.

'Clever and witty, but

'Clever and witty, but hopelessly uninformed and unappealingly smug and superior." -- I would agree completely with this statement, but it's not even that clever or witty.

Re: autism and "proof" of a vaccine connection: Keeping a scientifically objective mind, one can note that there is actually no "proof" that smoking causes cancer. Why? Because human tests to prove this are unethical.

However, we recognize the strong correlation, therefore we strive to seek more information on the topic. I'm not saying which side of the autism-vaccine I fall on...because I can see that there is far more information to gather before I blindly push away a strong correlation and reject the theory.

And who gives a crap if your friend wants to enjoy her short time on this planet by indulging in wine and tasty food? What do you care if reiki makes her feel good? Maybe she can't understand why you get all hot and bothered over what other people choose to do. I think "holier-than-thou" seems a more appropriate description for this writing style and world view. Get over yourself already.

I'm a cold blooded non

I'm a cold blooded non believer in any theory, but after many years of experience know for certain that homeopathy works, sometimes within minutes.

I became paralyzed with heavy metal poisoning I collected during my fruit tree spraying years with the vilest poisons, without any protection, as advised by our Cambridge professors. The only thing so called "conventional medicine" could do for me were painkillers, but my homeopath cleaned out my body.

It was an agony for about 3 months, because I couldn't take any painkillers because I had to explain the exact symptoms twice a day, but it was almost a miracle how those tiny remedies chased the poisons around my body and ultimately out.

At the same time, this Jan. I was diagnosed with a 6" tumour in my colon that no homeopathy could cure. The first operation went bad, with one of the staples leaking, and ultimately I had to spend 38 days in the hospital, 3 weeks without a bite of food, or drop of water, hooked up to dozens of tubes, but they got me out of it.

The lesson is that all healthcare professionals have their use and should cooperate, but the "conventional" end has so badly been enslaved by Big Pharma, that they can't think rationally in many cases. Some 9,000 Canadians are killed by prescription drugs every year, what we know of.

Some of our old friends literally have dozens of bottles of drugs they have to take and we can watch them going downhill from the side effects.

Never heard of anybody being killed by homeopathic remedies. There was a time when chiropractors were considered frauds and no medical doctor would have anything to do with them, now they can go into the hospitals and look at Xrays etc.talk to any doctor.

Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis.

Ed Deak, Big Lake

I'm not entirely too sure what the point is here...

What is your issue? If there is an argument here it's so laden with fallacies that I can't quite see it.

You slam these celebrities for promoting their own medical views, which I get, but then you follow up with premises that discredit practices such as reiki and homeopathy.

Not only are homeopathy and reiki completely irrelevant in the discussion of celebrity know-it-alls; but, you have launched a completely unfounded attack at two professions in complete ignorance of their history.

I see your attempt at a tongue and cheek approach here, but such stratagies tend to produce polarized responses.

I was hoping for a more open minded article, giving light to an ever growing alternative health fringe culture which these celebritiy know-it-alls often due a great discredit. This article serves as an example

Instead I got some uneducated overly biased rant which accomplished nothing.

Dissapointing.

Ed... you are lucky that you didn't get

Radium therapy that use to be prescribed by physicians in many parts of Europe.

Even Radium Hot Springs right here in Canada had a period of time where its benefits were espoused.

we need more citizen doctors

Like a few of the writers here I just don't get this article and how it landed in TheTyee. This is the kind of journalism/propoganda I would expect to find on some blowhard news outlet in the US and/or Alberta. Take your medicine and pray to a Christian God and all is well.

I recently saw a documentary on midwifery and the struggles this profession has had in the USA due to just this sort of attitude. Yes, it would be just much better if medical science was pre-eminent and doctors' word was law. We have so many examples of how this would work out for us, but most especially for vulnerable populations (remember the LSD experiments on the mentally ill). It was so great when doctors were able to blindfold, and bind women when they were giving birth or lobotomize women who didn't behave or just didn't live up to expectations (Kennedy's sister). After all women are the bearers of ultimate sin right? Yes, we should bow down to the corporations producing medications in the name of good medical science. Remember thalidomide anybody?

Although I wouldn't take medical advice from any celebrity, I think they have the right to speak about their experiences with alternative medicines. I also think we need to have a wider dialogue about alternative health options, given the rising crisis in our health systems. We need more citizen doctors. If people took charge of own health care we might need fewer medical interventions over all. Just plain old good diet and exercise appears to be an alternative medicine these days.

Anyway, I sure hope TheTyee publishes some very good articles on the worth of alternative health strategies and treatments to make up for this blowhard trash. Thanks to posters here at least some of the truth is being told.

quackwatch

The government, drug companies and the health authorities have lost my trust long ago. The FDA quackwatch is laughable. Anyone who thinks that vitamins or supplements could have any positive effect on your health is a quack according to the FDA. As for me I will take the quack of my choice over the status quo any day. The results can't possibly be any worse that the hundreds of thousands killed by doctors every year.

Come on!

Amateur writing and quack research.

Dr. Chris Shaw at an Anti-Forced Vaccination Rally in Vancouver

Some details about what is added to vaccines and what they can do to your brain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-Y1Guvqrro

Vaccines are the most popular homeopathic remedies.

Homeopathy is system of treatment where a small dose of a remedy that produces an effect similar to the ailment being treated is administered. These tiny doses are meant to stimulate an immune response which will overcome not only the induced symptom but the one being treated. ("homeo" means same in Greek.) This is in contrast to Allopathy which is treatment based on the use of remedies which produce an opposing effect to those of the disease being treated. ("Allo" means other in Greek.) Most conventional western medicine is Allopathic. Vaccination is a homeopathic practice as it typically consists of giving the patient a tiny quantity of the virus which they wish to prevent catching, in order to create an immune response to the virus in the body which will develop into an immunity which will persevere when the patient comes into contact with larger doses of the virus in the future. All other homeopathic remedies also use the bodies natural defences by triggering response.

homeopathy and vaccination

Vaccination and homeopathy may be similar in principle, but that’s where the similarity ends—most vaccines have a long list of toxic adjuvant and other ingredients.

homeopathy and the lost art of research

What an alarming load of kaka. I'm astounded that the Tyee would publish such ill conceived drivel.

Among the serious ailments I , and family members, have received so called 'alternative' cures for is Shingles. There is virtually no treatment offered for this viral illness by western medicine but a simple homeopathic treatment cleared my problem up within 48 hours. And when the Shingles resurfaced while I was in the south of France, the local pharmacy there gave me the same homeopathic treatment. This may come as a huge shock to Ms. Rupp but pharmacies in France (an elsewhere in Europe) offer both standard pharmaceuticals and homeopathic treatments in the same place, and have done so for decades. And then there is the Epstein Barr virus, which I was also blessed with. Again, no treatment offered by my friendly pill pusher. A highly qualified Chinese doctor, however, was easily able to cure my symptoms. I supposed that might also be considered alternative quackery. Perhaps someone should alert the various centers for integrative medicine that have been established in Vancouver and elsewhere.
Perhaps journalists should do a little considered research before
quacking off at the mouth.

Yikes!

Is this a joke? Seriously, is this article a joke? I can't believe the Tyee would let this one slip through. What happened to writing what you know about (or at least researching what you don't know about). Homeopathy magic? The scientific research is growing to prove this traditional medicine works. Chiropractic has been long supported by scientific evidence. Energy therapies are not medicine and practitioners usually don't claim to be. The controversy about vaccinations is valid and well supported as well. Rupp also doesn't realize that many of our so-called conventional medicines are not proven, for example chemotherapy and radiation. And what about all the drug companies that are being caught and sued for fixing their study results and misleading (and killing) consumers.

Sure, there are quacks in the natural health industry, but the pharmaceutical and medical industry is rife with fraudulent claims, mistakes and the like.

In addition, Rupp's comment about her friend needing to lose 30 pounds may be true, but is cruel and in no way has anything to do with whether reiki is valid or promoting wellness in her life.

I'm extremely disappointed to read this in a place where I can usually rely on a balanced and alternative view to shoddy, quack journalism.

I'm honestly astounded at just how terrible this article is. Shannon Rupp should be embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for her and the Tyee. It seems to me this was just a failed attempt at sarcastic humour and wit.

Please tell me it was a (bad) joke.

The Rise of Irrationality ...

... cannot be countered except with scientific evidence, scientific ethics, hard work and time :

http://tinyurl.com/ReasonableMedicine

"True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it."
Karl Popper

Dear Tyee, Like other

Dear Tyee,
Like other postees, I am seriously disappointed that you would have printed such a rant of an article that is clearly based upon prejudices and ignorance. There is not even a semblance of journalistic investigation or integrity here. I have been a fan of your publication and have been spreading the word but if this is a sign of things to come you will surely lose my loyalty.
While our western medical system is very good at addressing trauma, our disease based model is mostly at a loss when confronting chronic health conditions, other that prescribing prescription drugs that simply mask symptoms. And as for all the great advice that doctors give, doctors will readily admit that they were given no medical training in nutrition. An earthquake is shaking our traditional medical establishment as patients realize that longer and better-quality lives are truly within their grasp. Ultraprevention (functional medicine) that is based on treating the body as a whole system is a major tremor that is heralding a new direction in the practice of medicine. Dr. Mark Hyman is one doctor among a growing number of doctors, that has developed an exciting, easy-to-understand, and - most importantly - eminently achievable model of health. This approach includes alternative therapies that facilitate the relaxation response in the body including meditation, yoga and reiki.

Trust

Many of us distrust the tradional medical system, because of all the things they have done wrong, but do we apply the same standard to alternative therapies, or do we just take them on faith, as we once did with traditional treatments?
Please remember Rupp's story was opinion and not scientific piece!
ps - I heard there were heavy metals in some Chinese herbs, is that true or just part of a conspiracy by traditional drug companies?

Writer is out of her depth

I knew from the moment I read the word "quack" in the subtitle that this article would be an attack on naturopathy.

I wonder if the author even understands how the word "quack" was perverted from its original meaning describing American dentists who used silver with mercury (a known toxin to German dentists even in the 19th century) -- to describe and attack homeopathic doctors who practiced natural and holistic medicine, avoided such toxins as mercury, but who were expelled from American hospitals in the early 20th century. Does she understand that the categorization of those who practice natural medicine has been a century-long turf war that has NOTHING to do with efficacy of practice but the power of money and big industrial pharma to push its way through the hospital door and push common nutritional sense out of the way?

I suggest the writer spend some time investigating the subject in greater depth, study the the meaning and history of holistic and naturopathic medicine and think about how the human body is part of the natural biosphere -- not set apart on some higher, separate level, which is where pharma-medicine places it.

Also, in defense of Jenny Mcarthy -- blonde starlet or not -- she no doubt now sadly knows a great deal more about Autism and vaccines than she'd ever wanted to -- probably even more than even her own regular doctor, due to her son's condition. Experience is a great teacher.

Sniffles? Bend over please

Maybe Shannon Rupp needs to examine her own attitude toward allopathic medicine: she obviously has as much blind faith in conventional doctors as others have in naturopathic doctors. Yet the conventional medical system is now so compromised by corporate-corrupted 'regulatory' agencies like Health Canada and the FDA that it's impossible to know if anything other than the oldest of prescription medicines are safe.
Scientists who actually do their jobs and try to prevent dangerous pharmaceuticals from reaching the food chain, like former Health Canada scientist Dr. Chiv Chopra, are fired. We can thank him every time we pour milk over our cereal that we aren't required to ingest bovine growth hormone as Americans are.
I personally have been the victim of a Health Canada/FDA approved 'medicine' that crashed my immune system and left me with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. It was only after I got sick and did my own research on the drug that I discovered the abysmal pre-market test results that left me wondering how it ever was allowed onto the market. When I confronted my doctor, he admitted he knew nothing of this test data.
The FDA are good at counting bodies, though. Compiled FDA reports from 1998 to 2005 found dangerous side effects and deaths from prescription and over-the-counter medications almost tripled to nearly 90,000 incidents. Even the conservative Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in a 1998 report, found that prescription drugs kill about 106,000 Americans each year. The 2003 medical report Death by Medicine, by Drs. Gary Null, Carolyn Dean, Martin Feldman, Debora Rasio and Dorothy Smith, says 783,936 people in the United States die every year from conventional medicine mistakes. Yet how many are killed by homeopathy or naturopathy? The question is moot.
I'm disappointed in The Tyee for letting Ms. Rupp's hyper-cynical, attitude-drenched and poorly researched article get past the editor's usually keen eye.
To Ms. Rupp I say: Wait 'til you end up with a chronic illness, then see just how hip your cynicism is when you’re desperate for good health and all your doctor can offer you is a pill with a list of side effects as long as your arm.

What a delightfully Swiftian article

...that seems to have misaligned the lot of commenters' chakras.

As I read through the comments, I see the majority of people seem to believe there is some sort of conspiratorial link between big pharma and science. I assure you this is not the case, science is a discipline, a very challenging one, that continuously seeks, using the current best knowledge, the closest thing to the truth about a subject we have yet to achieve.

Science is challenging because it relies on the human brain, which has evolved to be somewhat of a Trixter. The evolution of pattern recognition has proved quite useful in perpetuating our species. This led to intuition, which has also proved quite useful in our evolution. Our brains very much dislike an explanatory void. We need to know what things are and why events occur. It helped us build tools, plan for hunting and gathering, and latter for planting and planning crops. But with every harvest moon pattern recognized, intuition also saw that we got it on in a muddy field in spring to appease the crop gods, or sacrificed a virgin here or their... some harmless, some not so much... though I suspect the latter succeeded as it became harder and harder to find sacrificial virgins... apologies, let me get back on track... My point is that correlation does not equate to causation. This fact was not discovered until it was stumbled upon during the second world war . Its premise was then used to create the greatest tool the field of medicine has ever implemented. The random controlled double blind trial.

This tool cleanly and clearly allowed us to discover the placebo effect. The random controlled trial has unequivocally showed that homeopathy relies 100% on the placebo effect, and to date, you cannot find a peer reviewed study that states otherwise. Yes, there are plenty of anecdotes, and anecdotes are great to spark a hypothesis, and hypothesis are great to use to develop a random controlled study. Which, if the hypothesis is proved correct, must then undergo a number of replication attempts by other disinterested researches... If no one else can replicate the results, the claim cannot be substantiated. Continued...

What a delightfully Swiftian article... continued

Now, why then, as so many have pointed out, is homeopathy thriving, especially in Europe? Quite simply because a certain European doctor stood back and analyzed medical outcomes of the day and didn't like what he saw. Not surprising since the doctors of the day were basing diagnosis and treatment largely on bias observation and intuition (everything you and I observe is with bias, we need to remove that to get to the truth, we need to step outside of our intuition). Since random controlled double blind trials were not to see their hey day until the 1940's, this doctor, using his intuition, selected (note the evolutionary term, 'selected') a process that he felt may display better outcomes. Indeed it did! But remember, correlation does not equate to causation. The reason he saw such greater outcomes was that while his treatments were doing absolutely nothing, he was saving individuals from going through the alternative intuitional based medical diagnosis and procedures which were indeed very very harmful (blood letting, arsenic, trepanation, etc). So, merely by prescribing a homeopathic remedy, which, according to chemical laws (see Avogadro's number), bares not a single molecule of whatever the 'like cures like' original substance chosen, under those circumstances, will most certainly appear to be clearly beneficial. Doing nothing generates far better outcomes than doing harm (unknowingly).

Add this to the fact that much of what ails us today will go away if we simply rest and let the bodies immune system take care of our ailments, and you get a very good recipe for false conclusions based on the correlation does not equate to causation error.

So, as with all things, there is a grey area, though most of us choose to view the black or white side of issues (it requires much less thought, and thought, like science, is quite hard). Countries with institutions set up to profit from medicine, like the USA, have magnitudes more of unnecessary prescriptions and procedures than does Canada, which will certainly lead to an increase in bias, fraudulent, and or incompetent prescriptions and procedures, which in turn are used as marketing tools by alternative therapy providers to push there wares. But all of those who claim to serve our health, whether science or intuitioned based, are human and therefore make mistakes. Which is why those who use and accept the the results of random controlled double blind repeatable studies, wins my trust and those who tell me all that ails me is the result of a misaligned chakra (or a yeast infection, or a subluxation, or a past life, etc.) win my scorn.

also see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31190909/

The Rise of the Citizen Doctor

What a foolish and sad article to show up on the Tyee.

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson.

BigPharma.... get thee back to PubMed

And, for starters, check out Saccharomyces boulardii. A yeast found on the lycee and was isolated after French scientists noticed South East Asians chewing the lychee skins to relieve symptoms of cholera.

Well, S. boulardii (which is a probiotic) has gone through the double-blinds has a DIN number and is available in France as UltraLevure.

It is shown to be some efficacy for the treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Crohn's and Clostridium difficile.

The problem with double-blind is that it costs money to do them. If a remedy is not patentable, then the pharmaceutical company, which engages the trials and provides the results (or their version of the results a la Vioxx) to the USDA or Health Canada, is not going to bear the costs of something they cannot make a significant profit on.

So, many potential DIN-able remedies are in the Catch-22 of actually working as a remedy or treatment, but not profitably, therefore, they don't get to market.

Now, if some of the publicly-funded medical research money went to the pursuit of clinical trials of cheap potential remedies such as the cancer-fighting DCA (in vitro and animal models so far) then we would see far more arrows in the medical quiver.

There's a movement in the

There's a movement in the UK, The Voices of Young Science, who want to ban homeopathy in Africa and, for all practical purposes, all over the world.

Homeopathy was unknown in Europe, but now has made some important advances, helping many millions, but there the availability of remedies is now restricted by Big Pharma, trying to take over the world, as they're doing it here and now.

In the interest of "safety" of course. The Pfizer Corp. have just been fined $2.4 billion for something, but that's OK and no records, free to move all over the world.

I've known my wife for 64 years and married for 58. In all this time I can not remember any prescription medication that hadn't given her very unpleasant and even life threatening reactions.

Never had any with any homeopathic remedies. The wife of a European friend was suffering with asthma for over 30 years and nothing could help her until she switched to homeopathy and the asthma just disappeared. Now her whole family is on the remedies and enjoy the benefits.

http://blog.hmedicine.com/homeopathy-and-homeopathic-medicine-blog/bid/10258/Voice-of-Young-Science-Discredits-Homeopathy

Ed Deak

Anecdotes are not data.

Excellent article! Whatever may be wrong with "western" medicine, the alternative "medical" world is full of hucksters, shysters, con-artists and a whole lot of people who are honestly deluded (good comment BigPharma) and are very happy to take money from people desperate to feel better. That doesn't make what they do any better than any other placebo.

The woo seems to go pretty deep in some of the commentators here, so for the rest of those who only look at their horoscopes for fun, check out

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/

Great Article

Thanks for the humourous take on this serious issue. The New Age/Alternative Medicine movement is not actually harmless, especially when it keeps people from seeking real medical intervention when they are really sick. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the U.S., (which is made up of believers in "alternative medicine", not skeptics), has studied most of the alternative modalities in a scientific way and has not found a single one that works in 10 years and $2.5 billion of research. Will alternative practitioners stop using those ineffective modalities simply because they are no better than a placebo? Never.

I also loved your Globe & Mail article on quackademic medicine at Vancouver Community College, and I was impressed to see you got a comment from James Randi. Keep up the good work, Shannon!

Citizen Doctor

I am a results oriented reiki practitioner. I have found that people have different experiences according to their needs. I do not specify an outcome but leave that to Spirit. Energy work, yes. Empirical, no. Most people experience benefit, from hip joint realignment to deep relaxation to pain abatement for up to two weeks. An adjunct to allopathic practice, not a replacement. I think that the results depend on the spiritual evolution of those involved.

Ten years ago I never would've imagined doing this work but here I am.

Jai Guru.

Reiki

Hiya Nellie:

Are you telling them you can cure their cancer and other life threatening diseases? Are you telling them not to seek other medical attention? If not then you're probably not helping them to die. Good for you! You sound responsible.

The rest sounds like woo. You don't specify an outcome - do you take credit for any improvement in any condition?

If the treatment doesn't work, then it seems you blame the "spiritual evolution" of the patient, not the efficacy of the treatment.

You've set things up so you can't lose. You promise nothing and aren't responsible for failure.

The process of science has evolved to offset natural human tendencies toward conformation bias and a poor innate ability to deal with probabilities - the innate variability of the world and the myriad of ways we can fool ourselves.

Without doing the science, without knowing the why and how, we don't know when a treatment is actually appropriate. We're blind.

no link between medical science and industry?

Big Pharma...you can assure us that there is no link between the pharmaceutical industry and science? Really? How then do you explain that most drug trials are conducted by industry, and that unfavourable results are suppressed and only surface much after the fact, after thousands have been harmed? The arthritis medication Vioxx alone killed almost 60,000 before it was removed from the market four years after the first serious reaction was reported. It was known to more than double risk of heart attack, and Merck kept it on the market as long as possible to help offset the legal costs they’d be facing.

And now, Merck, by their own admission still trying to recover from Vioxx and the $4 billion they’ve been ordered to pay out in compensation, has pushed Gardasil on the public like we’re all going to get cervical cancer tomorrow, even though it’s a rare disease in the developed world.

CNN Money reported that though Merck’s stock price is starting to climb out of its hole this year, the drug giant still faces a long uphill climb: “‘We have high expectations for Gardasil,’" wrote Tim Anderson of Prudential Equity Group in an analyst's note, where he said vaccine sales could be fueled by routine vaccination in girls as young as 11 and 12. Anderson projects annual sales of $3.2 billion by 2010.”

Dr Diane Harper of Dartmouth Medical School who herself worked on the development of Gardasil, told the New York Times this last year: “Merck lobbied every opinion leader, women’s group, medical society, politician, and went directly to the people—it created a sense of panic that says you have to have this vaccine now.” I asked her myself if she’d give it to a young daughter, and she answered with an unequivocal “no”.

“Vaccines are a business, like any other,” the Cochrane Library Review reminds us. “The only difference is that governments are co-sponsors with industry ... overestimation of the threat by the target diseases, suppression of data on adverse events and exaggeration of effectiveness are frequent. In the case of population vaccination programs, both governments and industry have conflicts of interest.”

Randi

"And that is a GOOD thing?"

Not if you're a quack, or a psychic.

www.randi.org

Also, another great site is www.quackwatch.org by Dr. Stephen Barrett. Learn all about homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic, naturopathy, etc.

Stephen Barrett

Stephen Barrett, when called on as an expert witness in court, has been declared by numerous judges to be biased and not credible. He has conceded ties to the American Medical Association, the Federal Trade Commission, and the FDA, and also admitted that the “sole purpose of the activities of Barrett & Baratz are to discredit and cause damage and harm to ... advocates of non-allopathic therapies and health freedom.”

Illogic

Connie:

You're deluding yourself if you don't think that there's big money behind alternative treatments. Lots of money behind cheap products that don't have to actually produce results and are protected from any malpractice suits.

Whatever the problems with the pharma industry and medicine, it has zero implications on whether or not an alternative treatment works.

Dr. Alexander says: "Well,

Dr. Alexander says: "Well, S. boulardii (which is a probiotic) has gone through the double-blinds has a DIN number and is available in France as UltraLevure."

Yes, thank you for bolstering my argument. Claims that pass repeatable rct studies become, well, effective medicine. Those that don't seem to find there way onto the back of the snake oil salesman's wagon. I don't know anything about UltraLevure, but if it passed proper trials, then there we have it, proper medicine.

Trust me, if there were a cheap and free substance out there that displayed any medicinal benefit, big pharma would be all over it... They'd conduct random controlled trials and get all Cartesian on it looking to isolate an active ingredient. Failing that, they'd look at any synergistic properties... there would be very serious science done on said substance. Getting a DIN is difficult not because of cost (thought that is an issue), but because of the scientific muster. Anything effective (or not), can be marketed and sold for a profit. Just ask the bottled water industry.

The sordid fact is that

The sordid fact is that there are quacks and frauds in every field of medicine, as in most other professions, regardless how much "science" they claim to back up their actions.

What works for some may kill others.

The important thing is to maintain the freedom of choice as an important part of democracy, then let people make up their own minds, instead of being pushed and ordered around by "experts".

Can anybody, for example, believe anything that comes out of the mouths of so called "economists"?

Ed Deak.

Sordid facts...

Ed,

I agree 100% with the notion that frauds abound everywhere, and the dismal science is anything but science.

We need to know why what works for some doesn't work for others, and choice is great but difficult when mountains of information make it difficult to determine propaganda from wishful thinking or reality.

"Science" isn't a self-proclaimed expert mouthing off. Science is a process where many, many people attempt to disprove what an "expert" hypothesizes about the world. It's the epitome of resistance to any arguments from authority - and it isn't easy, and it isn't free, and it's imperfect. (though remarkably self-correcting because so much prestige is acquired by proving the status-quo wrong).

Bring your skeptical angle to bear on the the woo as well as the economists. If homeopathy works because water retains the memory of what it mixed with, does it remember all the feces it was once part of?

Quackery in medicine

Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts has admitted that one of its doctors, Dr. Scott S. Reuben, faked data used in 21 studies on painkillers including Vioxx and Celebrex. This fake data has been important in the field of pain management and now anesthesiologists must reconsider certain practices adopted on the basis of Reuben's falsified work.

On March 10/09, the New York Times reported 21 studies falsified by Dr. Reuben included studies on Pfizer's painkillers Bextra, Celebrex and Lyrica, Merck & Co.'s painkiller Vioxx, and Wyeth's antidepressant Effexor XR. Bextra and Vioxx had to be withdrawn from the market for increasing the risk of heart attack leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Dr. Reuben's work was touted as having revolutionized pain relief for patients undergoing orthroscopic surgery. In 2000, Reuben tried to convince surgeons to switch from older anti-inflammatory drugs to the then-new proprietary COX2 inhibitors like as Vioxx, Celebrex, and Bextra. When some expressed fear that these drugs could inhibit bone healing, Reuben recruited co-authors for falsified studies to assuage such fears.

By 2004, Vioxx and Bextra had been recalled by government drug regulators. As reported by Scientific American, despite another study indicating that the last available COX2 inhibitor, Pfizer's Celebrex, posed similar risks, Reuben continued to trumpet the benefits and downplay the risks of prescribing Celebrex. As a member of Pfizer's speakers’ bureau, Reuben received five separate research grants from Pfizer. According to Scientific American, Paul White, an editor of the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia, estimates that Reuben's discredited studies "led to the sale of billions of dollars worth of the potentially dangerous drugs known as COX2 inhibitors, Pfizer's Celebrex (celecoxib) and Merck's Vioxx (rofecoxib), for applications whose therapeutic benefits are now in question."

Funny how the Quackbusters never report on these on going medical and drug fraud cases.

Great Work - Pt1

Well done Shannon. Very out of character for the Tyee. You really went out on a limb, and that is very admirable. I'm not surprised to see the rash of hysteria from those who confuse people who use scientific words with scientists.
The irony of people shouting that you are uninformed and should do more research who clearly do not know what they are talking about.

Case in point...

Here is the reality about homeopathy:

You are sick with ailment 'X'. Let's say that it causes insomnia and gives you a bad rash. You decide to go to a homeopath for treatment. She takes stock of your symptoms and determines treatments for them. The substances she chooses to treat with are selected according to the homeopathic 'law of similars' wherein 'like cures like.' In other words the effect of the substance used would be similar to the symptom and could be used to expel the disease. How would it do that? Why with it's vital force of course! But wait! There's more...

Based on your insomnia, the homeopath selects caffeine of course, and for your rash - poison ivy, and creates for you a pair of preparations to cure your malady.

"But wait!" You ask, being a sensible person, "Can't I just have a cup of coffee – as ludicrous as it sounds for curing insomnia? And poison Ivy? Uh... I'm supposed to drink that?"

"Don't worry." Your homeopath mollifies you. And she goes on to explain how she'll be preparing your cure.

First she'll take the caffeine and dilute it by a factor of 100. Then she'll succuss it. "You'll what?"

"I'll smack it 10 times with a leather saddle." By now your spidey-senses ought to be tingling.

(Continued in subsequent post.)

Great Work - Pt2

(Continued from previous post.)

Okay, to be fair, modern homeopaths have generally quit with the smacking it an arbitrary number of times with a saddle. Can you blame them? That's just ridiculous. No, today they shake it an arbitrary number of times along each axis – left to right, back to forth and up to down. That makes far more sense now.... doesn't it?

And then she takes a portion of that solution and dilutes it by a factor of 100 again, and succusses it again. And then she does it all again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. Thirty times. Each dilution by 100 is symbolized by the letter 'C' the Roman numeral for 100 – hence this dilution (the standard homeopathic dilution) is identified as 30C. Mathematically this will work out to 1060 – or 1 part of the original substance and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 parts water. If you took one molecule of the original substance and dropped it in all the water on earth (assuming that water was perfectly purified) it would still be trillions of times stronger than the solution your homeopath just made for you.

Now those numbers are obviously really really big. So big that it's hilarious to even really try to conceive it in your head. And that alone may make you want to question the validity of my refutation. I understand the instinct. But the reality is that you don't even have to go that far. There is a well established law of chemistry known as Avogadro's Number which simply put determines the number of molecules in a given volume. Using the hard facts of how the universe works you can – if you have the mad math skillz – work out that at approximately 12C the dilution would statistically speaking have a single molecule of the original substance in it.

(Continued in subsequent post.)

Great Work - Pt3

(Continued from previous post.)

So, now you must be asking yourself, how the heck is something that, by all reason, doesn't have any of the dubious curative compound in it at all, supposed to help me? Well, the short answer is that it won't. But you won't get that answer from a homeopath. Their response will be that the (it burns my fingers just to type it) 'according to Jacques Benveniste, water maintains a memory of the substance.' To which you'd be perfectly justified in responding "what the...!?! Give me my money back you quack!"

And that's before you start considering the repercussions of the thought that if water has memory doesn't that mean it remembers the shit dumped into it by everything that has ever lived? What exactly does T-Rex shit cure? Massive bites wounds possibly? Or, the equally implausible notion that (Oh gawd! The burning!) that a remedy that is more diluted is more effective. Seriously, classic homeopaths actually believe that. ....Seriously.

In order for homeopathy can be proven to work - and it has thus far failed in properly designed studies - it would mean our basic concepts of biology, chemistry, physics and even math are wrong.

So if homeopathy works, 2+2=5. And THAT is magic!

Connie and others are merely proving my point...

when the site specific cases where, surprise surprise, a human acted in a selfish and unjust way. I know, its hard to believe, but it does happen. Scientists falsify claims, they say they can make cold fusion in a jar, or, as Connie points out, falsify test results for private and or corporate gain. Shocking. Hmmmm, if only there were some sort of process we could implement to weed these bad apples out... Hey, how about SCIENCE!!! You see Connie, the process of science IS what allows for the overturning of previous sinister or incompetent results. We can then kick those who don't play by the rules out of the club house, which does happen. Politics and greed are what you have a beef with, don't blame science, it doesn't care one way or the other what results come from the truth, it only is concerned with getting to the truth.
As for suppressing bad results, that is bad behaviour that science does not sanction. At least, in all regulated research trials, ALL results MUST be published. If only chiropractors, homeopaths, energy healers, etc were held to the same standard.

Quackery in medicine

Waldmeister,

So, are you trying to say that because there is fraud amoungst doctors, that this makes alternative medicine more likely to be true?

Or are you saying that we should in fact have even stronger rules and tests about the efficacy of any proposed treatment and the claims of any drug whether from bigpharma or ancient china?

If it's the former, I hope all can see the logical fallacy in that form of argument. If it's the latter, I whole-heartedly agree!

Laughter is the best medicine

These blokes are brilliant on homeopathy and bunch of other topics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

Tim Minchin also does the deed on woo here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s

No BigPharma, you missed the point

Clinical trials were done AFTER the efficacy of S. boularii use was already demonstrated by an indigenous peoples.

S. boulardii didn't suddenly work after an RCT. It always worked. Therefore, the use of a folkloric medicine cannot be dismissed in a blanket-like fashion. There is a lot of promise with ethnobotanicals and that is why pharmaceutical companies are exploiting them when they can. If there is no financial gain in the exploitation, then no trials are going to take place. That does not take away from the natural product's usefulness as a medicine if indeed it has the necessary pharmacology.

Pharmaceutical companies don't do anything if there is not the potential for profit. Ask anyone involved in rare or orphan disease research. So, it is no surprise that people will seek alternatives when conventional wont help.

Is there quackery in alternatives? Yup. Been proven.
Is there alteration or deletion of data sufficient to cause death in the established pharmaceutical industry? Yup. Proven also.

And that begs the question. If you can't trust the clinical trials, then can you really trust the pharmaceutical industry any more than the alternative medicine industry?

Nature

Nature made water as it is and it is one really cool substance. Quantum physics has now proven that water is affected by our intention. Thats right, swear and project bad thoughts onto water and it freezes very differently (crystal shapes and bonds) than water that you "bless" or send positive intention to. Read about it or watch the movies "Down the Rabbit Hole" "What the Bleep Do We Know?" and possibly "The Secret".

Big Pharma

Big Pharma: you’re missing my point also; science is supposed to self-correct, true, and incompetent or corrupt players and organizations should be stopped in their tracks. But the reality is that corrections regularly don’t take place until after thousands of human beings have been badly harmed, which means something is very wrong, and what’s wrong, in Marcia Angell’s words, is that the pharmaceutical industry has co-opted "every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the Food and Drug Administration, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself."

I admire doctors and am enormously thankful for some medical interventions; my son is alive because of insulin. My other son now wears a white coat in a university hospital. But the truth is that science has mislead us too often to count, which means we ought not take any orthodox medical-scientific wisdom at face value—nor should we set aside the fact that iatrogenic disease is epidemic. And if caution is in order, and naturopathy is safe and non-invasive, it really doesn’t need to be subject to the same kind of rigorous scientific testing we subject powerful drugs to.

I was wondering when the Q bomb would get dropped...

I think these type of discussion require a law much like Godwin's Law: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Let's see, perhaps something like: "As an alternative and complimentary health discussion grows longer, the probability of all unreasonable ideas being attributed to quantum physics approaches 1... no infinity... wait, its 1 again... Whoa! This is weird!"

Big Pharma

Did I say I was blaming science? I was simply challenging your starting point, your rejection of the link between pharmaceutical industry interests and science.

Let's look at the science of

Let's look at the science of medicine and how it changes, in many ways going back in time.

My wife had 1 baby in Burnaby in 1958, 2 in Vancouver in 1959 and 64 in 3 different hospitals.

I was kicked out of the hospitals with "We'll call you!". The waiting rooms for fathers were little cubbyholes with broken furniture, stinking from smoke. Now fathers are encouraged to stand by and give encouragement to the mothers.

When my wife was wanted to breastfeed, everybody, the doctors and nurses were horrified and called her all kinds of derogatory names, tried to bind down her breasts and drain her milk, because it was bad for the babies. She was the only one in the ward to breast feed and everybody looked at her as an idiot.

So, what happened in the years since, that the ideas of the profession changed so much ? Just watched a news clip on TV where a doctor explained how much breastfeeding helps sick babies in pain.

The same is going to happen with the alternative health systems, once people wake up to the fact that profits and systems built around profits are not science and there's more to the world than what we may believe.

Ed Deak.

Just a reminder...

Whatever you think about "western" medecine, consider this inescapable reality: There's a reason we never see this or this in Canada anymore. The reason is vaccines, and for vaccines we have science to thank.

The Science of..

Ed,

You've got it exactly right again! So called experts put out their edicts (i.e. don't breastfeed), and somebody calls them on their assumptions ('cause there actually was very little of the process of science done on those edicts), and as a result of research and testing those hypothesis, the way things are done changes!

Homeopathy hasn't changed since it started - because it has never ever attempted to figure out how, why or when it works (same with acupuncture). And when someone has tested it under controlled conditions, it has never performed better than a placebo.

And just to emphasis it again, science is a process, not an object. It's a process to find out what holds true despite our beliefs.

An alternative medicine that works, no matter where it comes from (like aspirin) is just called medicine.

Addendum

Just to add a clarification..

An alternative medicine that works, no matter where it comes from (like aspirin) is just called medicine, except we know how it works, (hopefully) why it works, when to use it, and just as importantly, when not to use it.

Fallibilism: Doctrine that

Fallibilism: Doctrine that nothing can be known for certain; that is, there is no infallible knowledge, but there can still be knowledge. We need not have logically conclusive justifications for what we know.

5keptical: If you could refrain from constantly setting up a stawperson to attack in your arguments I would be more persuaded by your points.

I don't think anyone is encouraging a people to neglect the bounty of knowlege that Western Medicine has bestowed upon us. Quite simply I think the alternative medicine culture just highlights how much we have yet to understand. Because science cannot yet prove reiki or acupuncture, does that mean that body energy and meridians don't exist? Does that disprove reiki and acupuncture? I don't think so... that would be an argument from ignorance and a fallacy of a hasty conclusion. As far as I'm concerned centuries of practice and relative success still place the onus to prove or disprove upon science.

I would also appreciate if you would stop setting irrelevant standards. Most alternative practitioners are not trying to save the world or cause cancer. The experienced ones I have come across prescribe to the practices of maintaining health and preemptive medicine. If you have never had a reiki session from a trained and well practiced professional, I can tell you that it is alot more stress reducing then prozac or whatever your GP would prescribe.

I prefer keeping an open mind, science is making progress everyday, it is in all of our best interests if the human spirit progresses at the same pace.

correction on last post: cure* not cause

I would really hope they aren't trying to cause cancer!

for 5keptical

Hello 5keptical.

I cannot make any guarantees because the benefits are different for each person. I don't promise anything because they get what they need. It's not my decision. The first reiki is free. I want the recipient to judge the benefit. If they like it, they come back.

This "ability" is a grace conferred by spiritual discipline and lifestyle. If someone feels/gets nothing there is nothing lost. But I do require that whoever I do have a belief in God. Their definition.

And I've never, ever suggested reiki as a substitute for medical attention. It does seem however to speed recovery. This could simply be a result of deep relaxation.

FromTheMasses:

Because science cannot yet prove reiki or acupuncture, does that mean that body energy and meridians don't exist?

Science has all the tools it needs to be able to demonstrate the effectiveness of a treatment. It's as simple as getting a bunch of people together and asking, "are you healed?" When no effect materializes on the population level, it's safe to presume that no effect - primary effect, I mean, not side-effects - exists.

You're essentially asking that the causes of non-existent phenomena be investigated, which is a little bizarre.

Anus Science...

Busy Missed a lot of this.

Suffice it to say, I will hang my hat on the views of Fait and 5keptical over the "true believers" in obscurantist and "mystical" quackery any day. (And I concede there is lots of stuff we don't yet and may never know, but still recognize bullshit and religious mumbo-jumbo, even when it attempts to hide behind pseudo-science.)

Looking forward to the end of this "busy" period, and having all my winter hay in for my horses, and being able to chat more with you folks-, even those I view as wackos. :-) Who have all come out of the woodwork here, in spades. :-)

Religion as medicine. Bah! Humbug! :-) lol.

"I cannot make any guarantees because the benefits are different for each person. I don't promise anything because they get what they need. It's not my decision."

I'll say. Thank goodness for that.

Which as Fait notes above, isn't to say that the "scientific view" always gets it right either. But at least it evolves. Religious "science" always has its head stuck in the out of world, other world, incantations, faith driven, or ancient past, which is a metaphor for its anus.

The rise of scientific ethics ...

... may help the gullible on the road to avoiding the quack traps :

http://www.ted.com/talks/lee_smolin_on_science_and_democracy.html

And the Q-bomb too !

What nonsence

Shannon -- whoever it was who posted that you should be living in Alberta and writing for the Alberta Business Report (or some such mag) got it right. Have you read all the comments under your article? If you did, you may get the impression that although many of us may admire your witty writing skills, 99% of we Tyee readers don't agree with the points you make and wish you would put those skills to better use.
We live on the western edge of Canada, in the Interior or the West Coast of B.C. We're into auras, homeopathic medicine, green vegetables, recyling and chiropracters -- not just case it saves the health-care system money, but cause they work.
If you try them and find they don't, the flat lands on the eastern slope of the Rockies are calling.
I hope you and the editors of Tyee get the point. If I want to read conservative/redneck/anti-enlightened gumph, I know where to find it. I didn't expect to see it on the pages of Tyee.
Ah, yes, the lyrics to an Ian Tyson song are coming in . . .
"Think I'll go out to Alberta,
Hear the weather's good there in the fall . . ."

oeanda

"Science has all the tools it needs to be able to demonstrate the effectiveness of a treatment. It's as simple as getting a bunch of people together and asking, "are you healed?" When no effect materializes on the population level, it's safe to presume that no effect - primary effect, I mean, not side-effects - exists."

If only things were so black and white. Once science can tell me how to access the full power of my mental capacity then I will listen uncritically. Until then I place a certain degree of my faith into my own spirit as opposed to an ever changing sequence of numbers. I suggest you try some deep meditation, its amazing the ailments you can relieve by simply thinking about them.

"You're essentially asking that the causes of non-existent phenomena be investigated, which is a little bizarre."

I'm not even sure if your summary makes sense, but regardless of your own logic, your summary of mine is a complete fallacy. I'm attempting a rational conversation and I would appreciate an interpretation that keeps my remarks in context.

Winter Nonsense

Lorraine, are you pulling our collective leg?

From pulling a 99% statistic out of thin air to making debunking pseudoscience and fraud a left/right wing issue - if you're serious about that posting I'm flabbergasted!

FromThemAsses

"Fallibilism: Doctrine that nothing can be known for certain; that is, there is no infallible knowledge, but there can still be knowledge. We need not have logically conclusive justifications for what we know"

What is this? Proof by quote-mine from wikipedia?
You juxtapose sentences to miss-represent what article actually states (all of that just to support some notion that what, any belief you might have is just as valid as something vigorously tested? Explain) The full context includes the statement: "Rather, it [fallibilism] is an admission that, because empirical knowledge can be revised by further observation.

Guess what? That's the basis of science - models of reality that undergo continuous scrutiny to ensure they are consistent with observation and are revised where they are shown to be inadequate.

Science does not prove that reiki energies or meridian lines don't exist, it goes out and shows that the proposed effects and benefits of are not distinguishable from the effects and benefits of a placebo.

And don't just state that I've made a strawman argument without quoting it.

As for "most alternative... aren't out to save the world or cure cancer"... from reiki.org

Reiki Helps Hodgkin's Lymphoma
Reiki and Prostate Cancer
Uteral Malignancy Healed
Reiki Heals Stroke
Reiki Saved My Tooth
Reiki Heals Hearing
Reiki Heals Depression and Back Injuries
Collarbone Grows Back

plus the "global healing" link.

I keep an open mind, just not so open that my brains fall out.

Show something that's not placebo or fraud or just plain old massage and you would be world famous!

FromTheMasses

BTW, the miss-capitalization in my last message was purely accidental... didn't notice it until after it was posted. My apologies.

"If only things were so black and white. Once science can tell me how to access the full power of my mental capacity then I will listen uncritically."

This is poor logic on so many levels.
So science should only be listened to if what? It can answer that question? Has the answer to any question? Listen uncritically to what? Everthing that peer-reviewed studies show?

Does that mean you don't listen to your priest/homeopath/reiki practitioner/your own spirit until they can answer that question as well? What did it say?

What is this unlocked potential of your own mind that you're talking about? Do you have some specific phenomenon in mind? Can you test it? Can you reproduce it reliably?

How does that have anything to do with actually checking to see if someone's claims actually reflect reality?

science can be bought by the highest bidder

"Which is why those who use and accept the the results of random controlled double blind repeatable studies, wins my trust and those who tell me all that ails me is the result of a misaligned chakra (or a yeast infection, or a subluxation, or a past life, etc.) win my scorn".

Logic, my friend, is subject to a lot of things including culture, however, money buys a lot of random controlled double blind studies or none at all. Further, does everything stand up well to this sort of structured research? I say not. Pills, though, do great in this kind of format. Thus, pills are rising in favour and other forms of intervention are lagging (eg., mental health). I am sure we will soon be finding that food supplements are far superior to food before long. Another example is what is weighed eh! What is a good outcome for instance. Is it health or profit, I mean cost?

Hello Nechakogal,

You, along with others, miss a very important point, that is, science can not be bought by the highest bidder. A corrupt scientist can be bought by the highest bidder, but not science; and the community of scientist will expel such corruption. It will also discover and point out flaws and errors in past theories or mal conclusions. A good scientist will then applaud the new insight, and will continue on with new questions to answer...
You are correct, random controlled double blind trials are not for all types of research, but that's not what this article is about, it's about treatments that rct's do fit the bill. Sure, a pill is the easiest, but clever people can come up with intriguing, pardon the pun, alternatives... Take acupuncture for instance. Lets have a group receive traditional acupuncture, and a control group get poked with needles randomly, but never in any of the spots all those traditional Chinese medicine folks spend so much time and money memorizing. The outcome in both groups is identical. Such results call into question the entire premise of the meridian / chi hypothesis. That's rct with a double blind twist... and very clever on the researchers part. So, I say to all the acupuncturists out there, find out what it is that seems to help with pain management, 'cause the whole meridian thing doesn't seem to hold water... but there is certainly something worth investigating, so stop being the faithful and start being scientists, and investigate honestly.
But this is the crux isn't it. We don't like questioning our beliefs, especially ones we have invested so much in. Cognitive dissonance kicks in...
As for your other example about food… its not really a good one to bolster your point. The opposite is occurring… and has been for some time. Science (and your standard run of the mill 'western' medicine doctor) has been pointing to whole food over supplements and pills for some time... the crazy state of 'nutritionism' we see is more a result of politics and agra business lobbying than science. Sure scientists are examining the nutrients of food, but it... well, read Michael Pollan's "In Defense of Food" for that story, its quite good, and points to the technocratic culprits…
Again, science is process, it grows and improves over time floating above a collective body do knowledge. Science is designed to get to the truth. How humans use or misuse that knowledge is the rub...

Placebo Acupuncture

In recent controlled studies patients reported the same results from traditional acupuncture, sham acupuncture (needles inserted randomly) and placebo acupuncture (needles not inserted, but patient thinks they were inserted). In other words, acupuncture appears to cause a classic placebo effect. There does not appear to be a therapeutic effect at all.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=492

Will this cause acupuncturists to reexamine their treatments? No. Why? Because it's a belief system, not a medical procedure. As Ben Kavoussi put it, it's "astrology with needles".