Iridology: who knew diagnosing cancer could be like spotting the shape of a bunny rabbit or a sailing ship in a cloud. Image:iridology.com.cn
I previously posted examples of the horrific proliferation of Australian universities teaching accredited and Federally funded science degrees in mumbo-jumbo and hogwash. Around Christmas there was a letter to the editor in The Advertiser from Rob Morrison saying that a group calling themselves “Friends of Science in Medicine” were starting up to combat exactly this sort of pseudoscience being taught in our universities.
It seems like things are starting to kick off with FSM, and a post by Rob on the Australian Science Communicators list explains a bit more about the group (since it’s a public mailing list with content published on the asc website I’m assuming he won’t mind me re-posting it):
The recently formed “Friends of Science in Medicine” (FSM) has quickly acquired 300+ members, including influential supporters from overseas, and is growing fast.
…FSM is hoping to influence universities (at least the reputable ones) to declare their support for science courses that are in fact evidence-based and adhere to accepted scientific methodology. It will then have a go at trying to influence the government, which helps fund these courses and uses taxpayers’ money to allow health fund rebates for “treatments” with these demonstrably ineffective pseudoscientific therapies.
19 out of Australia’s 39 universities now offer these pseudoscience degrees and courses as science or health science, including Homeopathy, Iridology, Reflexology, Kinesiology, Healing touch therapy, Aromatherapy and ‘Energy Medicine’.
That is the sort of “science” we might be better off without.
Hear, hear. 19/39 is a depressing score – looks like they’ve got a battle against a lot of money-making courses on their hands. And the sooner someone gets hold of some really dodgy course material to embarrass them into closing the better (none of the 19 are here in SA).
A screen grab from Southern Cross University's website
I’ve also found an excellent ABC radio interview from yesterday explaining what FSM is doing, with a long list of alleged pseudoscience offenders, including RMIT, University of Queensland, Charles Sturt University, Macquarie University, Curtin, Edith Cowan, Murdoch, University of Newcastle, Canberra Institute and University of Sydney.
Having recruited (“Join us!“) a Prof-heavy list of supporters and started contacting the offending universities, it’ll be interesting to see what they do next and how much success they have. And universities justifying uncritically teaching pseudoscience should be named and shamed.
Random anon
24/01/2012
I’m glad the FSM could take time off its usual business of touching Pastafarians with its noodly appendage.
Ronit
26/01/2012
and what the Chinese and Indians (Aryuveda) knew thousands of years prior is not considered medicine .
There a thousands of documented cases of these medicines curing/alleviating illnesses from Cancer to diabetes to colds.
What a narrow minded group you people are.
Just trying to protect your own turf.
What you don’t know scares you and want it banned …you fools.
Jeff
27/01/2012
Ronit, most of the pseudosciences listed (Homeopathy, Iridology, Reflexology, Kinesiology, etc.) were invented by Westerners within the past two centuries.
Melissa D
26/01/2012
Hi Ronit
If you read the letters the FSM is not about banning anything – just about keeping Universities focused on science and not quackery!
The short letter states:
“We are not trying to stop public access to alternative therapies provided that the public is fully informed about the lack of, or minimal evidence for, safety and efficacy of these alleged treatments.
We are in favour of discussing the place of alternative therapies, their placebo effect and the testing of these therapies in well-designed trials”
Surely that is what our Universities should be doing?
I wish them luck – I think they are doing the right thing.
Richard Corongiu
27/01/2012
I could murder a shark for its fin in a soup bowl I’m sure it’ll make me better
Daz
27/01/2012
How dare the so called “Friends of Science in Medicine” decide to name themselves after my religion. As a Pastafarian I am shocked and angered that they are using the name of my saviour for their own purpose. Why not call themselves Budda, Jesus or Xenu, rather than use my gods name, the FSM?
appauled
27/01/2012
I notice the Police Union uses obnoxious methodology to make its point and protect its idee fixe. The AMA in America was formed for similar “insurance” purposes and I see this group-FSM- as a similar hatchet-job type group. I am not very impressed at all. I love science but have discovered sooooo many solutions which fall outside the narrow idee fixe of what might be misleadingly called “classic science”….solutions which are not necessarily invalidated by quantum science, just not endorsed due to the brotherhood of the sciences. However, the screw is turning and quantum science is and has blown away classic science in a number of areas, proving it(classic science) to be wanting in the extreme. So many holes exist in science and the one that I find the most striking is the total lack of a scientifically valid department called parascience ….or at least a total lack of its USE! The department may be there but the subjects which should be referred to it are, as is exemplified by the FSM, dismissed out of hand as quackery etc. Now THAT is very unscientific!! We have now descended into the depths of protectionism and its sister: FEAR! Again, VERY UNSCIENTIFIC!!!! I would love to go on and discuss the myriad loopholes and now laughable inconsistencies that exist in “science” but I will close in saying that it is actually this type of activity which is trashing “science” the activity FSM is engaged in. Remember similar groups have existed in all times and form part of that inevitable process of DENIAL just before the new discovery is made which buries forever the very lie the group is trying to save as truth. Good luck boys, but I don’t like your chances.
Chris
27/01/2012
Appauled, you managed to fill a whole paragraph and say nothing at all. The following is also pointed at Ronit:
Science is not a body of knowledge. Science is a process by which knowledge is accrued, tested, re-tested and built on. If “Chinese and Indians (Aryuveda)” or “quantum science” can stand up to evidence based (science based) scrutiny – e.g. successfully cure cancer in a double blind test, then I am happy to explore it.
Rob
30/01/2012
Yeah, lets stick to the science shall we. What, the “science” pharmaceuticals seem to regularly use to get their drugs passed? While I’m not a fan of all the alternative stuff the arrogance of western medicine really grates with me.
Ann
31/01/2012
Why Prof John Dwyer thinks these university courses are “pseudoscience courses” is beyond me. I wonder if he really has any idea the content of these courses. For example core units for a 4 year Naturopathy degree from Southern Cross University consisted of 2 units anatomy and physiology, 2 units pathophysiology, 2 units clinical diagnosis, 4 units chemistry and biochemistry, 4 units nutrition, 4 units herbal medicine (including botany and pharmacognosy), as well as history of naturopathy, counselling, statistics (research methods), clinical training, 1 unit massage and 1 unit homeopathy ; the other units from a 32 unit course are electives. The vast majority of this is main-stream science.
sansscience
31/01/2012
Southern Cross University teaches that homeopathy:
Homeopathy is totally debunked pseudoscience. And claiming that it can treat real diseases is dangerous – especially if you’re suggesting that it’s okay if their symptoms get worse. What happens when a kid is having an asthma attack and their parents delay administering real treatment, or taking the kid to the Emergency Department, because think that their symptoms getting worse is a positive effect from the homeopathy remedy? Clearly you’re teaching your students to believe this nonsense, since it’s in SCU’s outpatient Health Clinic.
How does teaching evidence based science most of the time make teaching homeopathy ok? If you’re getting the students to believe in homeopathy, then they’re coming away from their ‘science’ degree with an ability to disregard all scientific evidence when it suits their ideology.
Sonia
13/02/2012
Actually, students at SCU may question things that they are taught, are encouraged to do so and engage in discussion about the topics. There is so much amazing disrespect from this group and it’s supporters. You are clearly coming from a point of ignorance. You do not know how these courses are run from the ground level. If you did, you would see that what we are learning is often in the same area as the nurses, for example. Instead, you are trying to sway mass opinion with broad generalized sweeping statements and by taking things out of context. It’s so incredibly insulting.
How do you think the Australian health system has gotten to this point? What could possibly have driven someone to see a chiropractor, a naturopath, a homeopath? What do you think happened there? Now, I know it’s a bit of a bitter, ehem, pill to swallow, but it’s due to the treatment they received, or lack thereof, that drove them there. What treatment is that? Oh, it’s the treatment they got from their GP, their oncologist, their dietician, their physiotherapist etc…
Take a big breath guys, I think you’re going to drown sooner than you think.
sansscience
13/02/2012
I’m not the one making “broad generalized sweeping statements” lumping all therapies with and without evidence into one basket – chiropractors, if they’re treating lower back pain (and not indulging in historical nonsense about subluxations), may have an evidence base and plausibility for aspects being subsumed in a health science degree.
Homeopathy, on the other hand – the only effect it’s likely to have on us is to drown us since it’s so diluted it’s 100% water (with imaginary ‘memory’). Are you proposing addressing any problems in our health care system by selling people water instead?
This debate is over whether pseudoscience, like homeopathy, should be taught in university science degrees. It’s not about unscientific anecdotes of personal experiences of our healthcare system and it’s also not about your right to practice therapies without evidence for anyone who wants to pay for it, which belong in natural therapy colleges not reality-based university science. But I thank you for your contribution to this discussion, calling me ignorant and suggesting I’m going to drown.
Sonia
13/02/2012
Yes, you are I’m afraid. Chiropractors have some evidence based treatment protocols and others that have no evidence but do have clinical results for such treatment. Unfortunately you’rer taking one group, homeopathy, and say that we’re all ‘quack’ (charming…) practitioners based that one groups’ theory on treatment. While I, personally, do not agree with the theory of homeopathy, I would not presume to call people who use it ignorant, which is essentially what this group is doing. They’re saying that people who are using these therapies are ignorant to the fact that they’re total ‘hocum’ (charming…).
I’d suggest while you are engaging in this debate that you use some of that objectivity that you’re spruiking, and have a wide view of what is beig said by both sides.. And stop taking such a disrespectful tone to your argument. It’s not doing you any favours. CLEARLY I am not advocating treatment of medical disorders by water… But then, and I’m sue you’ve thoroughly educated yourself in homeopathic theory and practice, neither is the homeopathic profession..
Sonia
13/02/2012
I do apologize- i didn’t even read to the end of your comment then…my bad..,interesting interpretation by the way…maybe a Kinesiologist for you…
I certainly wasn’t suggesting that you personally were going to drown… That would be terrible. I was simply referring to this group of FSM…which, yes, will go under I believe (oh, and no, not literally underwater to drown, by rather metaphorically).
Chris
31/01/2012
Rob, science isn’t arrogant, it is simply the best method we have of distilling truth. People are arrogant… what is it in particular that grates with you?
Mark Philip Deal
31/01/2012
Just a comment.
Here we are in the 21st Century and we can’t all accept each other. Professor Dwyer, who has never accepted complimentary medicines by being both naive and closed minded, is accepted in this anti-healing, witch-hunt group of so-called professionals, who want to rid society of therapies, which not only work, but have so much documentation and particularly objective, reproductive results (often called empiric results). If we, as “alternative” (I prefer “complimentary”) therapies are to be blocked, or moreso, controlled by politics, pharmaceutical companies, and the egos of scientists and medical fraternity members, then society is at a loss.
Moreso, if they tried to outlaw, Chiropractic, Osteopathy, Naturopathy, Homoeopathy and the like, then there would be an amazing black market for these therapies, because they work.
Any intellectual should note how many drugs in the MIMS compendium for medicines, has “Mechanism of action = unknown”. How scientific is that?
Time to wake up, people and embrace the variety of therapies that can help us all.
beej
01/02/2012
I agree completely Mark. I wish there were more complimentary therapies.
How great it could be:
You’ve just snapped your femur in a horrific car accident. You have multiple gashes to the groin area, possibly ending any future opportunities of fatherhood. Glass from an impacted windscreen has shredded your previously Brad Pitt-esque visage. Blinding pain wipes your mind clear of any clear thought.
But Hark! The ambulance crew arrives! ‘Oh Sir! Your blood matches the paintwork!’, ‘My, how your tie matches your suit, Sir’, What sparkling eyes you have, Sir’.
And you feel better already. Ahhh, wouldn’t that be wonderful…
Mark Philip Deal
02/02/2012
Hello Beej,
Thankyou for offering your extremist and ignorant response. Most complimentary therapies do not deal with triage conditions nor attend horrific accidents. I have been permitted to view and understand Arthroscopy surgery, I have taught in Pharmacology and Pathophysiology, Neurology, Human Movement and Biomechanics, Anatomy and Physiology at multiple levels. I have treated Paramedics, Ambulance worker’s, Medical Specialists, General Practitioners, Nurses, Dentists, Podiatrists, to just name a few professionals. I am a Registered chiropractor and Osteopath who also utilises Traditional Chines Acupuncture.
I treat regularly, Migraines and Cervicogenic Headaches, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Repetitive Strain presentations of many types, Compartment syndromes, Sporting injuries, many Sciatic and Nerve compression presentations ……to name a few.
I also have a great rapport with many Medical Specialists, G.P.’s, Physiotherapists and part of the greater Complimentary community. I continually update my education requirements, including current Senior First Aid. So i also know how and what to do to assist Paramedics at an “horrific car accident”.
Please do not presume our ignorance on a general scale.
beej
03/02/2012
Mark,
First off, what is it exactly that you were arguing against? Maybe you read my comment a little quickly. I’m pretty sure the word you’re looking for is ‘Complementary’ not ‘complimentary’. Do you see the joke now?! I know! it’s a cracker! The paramedics are COMPLIMENTING someone to make them feel better!
Oh well, at least the complimenting would probably work better than the complementary medicine.
I’m well aware that alternative medicine isn’t used in triage or horrific accidents. There’s a good reason for that: they don’t work.
//
Now if you’re a chiropractor that’s fine by me, I go to one myself. As long as you don’t spout the traditional chiropractic line that vertebral subluxation interferes with the body’s innate intelligence.
I don’t know anything about Osteopathy, so I won’t comment on that, but as for acupuncture, I’ll leave that to our illustrious host: http://sansscience.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/the-conversation-hosts-alternative-medicine-academics-defending-themselves-against-friends-of-science-in-medicine/
It obviously needs pointing out again: Alternative medicines that have been proven to work are just called ‘Medicine’. So I’m not telling you that you can’t be an acupuncturist. (From your original comment) No one is trying to ban ‘Chiropractic, Osteopathy, Naturopathy, Homoeopathy and the like’. That was never stated in this blog or in any of the comments so I’m not sure why you felt the need to make that argument.
// As long as if what you’re using has not been experimentally verified, they’re aware of that. I hope their placebo treats them well. (and no, I’m not saying that what you personally are using isn’t verified, that was generalised to all alternative therapies, as I don’t know enough about what you do personally)
I do, however, have a problem when quacks try telling people with a serious illness (ie cancer) that homeopathy or something equally full of shit can treat them, and that a natural part of homeopathic treatment is that your symptoms can get worse before they get better. Therefore delaying real treatment. Therefore killing them.
//
Mark Philip Deal
03/02/2012
Hello again,
//
It appears my argument is more with you, than the general Blog represented here.
//
Groups like the Cochrane Consensus have analysed the “minimal” studies and scientific methodology of various “Alternative” medicines. A big reason there are limited studies, is that they are not funded by the likes of Pharmaceutical Companies, since there is no monetary value in return for validating these fields of study.
I would agree with you about the Chiropractors who spout Chiropractic Philosophy, since I do not agree with heavy pressure sales talk, nor “in house” talk of the”subluxation”, etc.
I prefer to inform my patients as fully as I can about procedures that I use and the possible outcomes as well as informing them of the “beliefs” behind the procedures, whether they be Scientific or inferred. And, I encourage questioning.
It would also be professional for you to remain formal and not debase yourself by utilising gutter talk. Oh, and I am glad you laugh at your own jokes. Maybe you could consider Laughter Therapy, it couldn’t hurt you to try, since I am sure you would consider the results placebo driven.
Cheers….Mark
//Mod: I’ve had enough of the irrelevant personal attacks and disputing your qualifications (which only arose because you didn’t realise beej was satirising of your complete inability to spell ‘complementary’), and to finish this thread I have deleted those paragraphs (//) – to be fair, from both your and beej’s last posts.//
Evan Read
02/05/2012
Well then, your profession needs to justify your position by proving that your therapies work. You have the same opportunity as other medical professionals to publish your findings in medical journals. If it works, and your results are objective and replicable, then you need to share.
Now, as I work at RMIT University I am aware of the Chiropractic program there. There are chiropractors there who finally agree that the original philosophy of chiropractors no longer applies – such as treating asthma and infection. They also agree that more evidence is required for them to be accepted into mainstream medicine. So you have a lot of work to do.
The problem is that you don’t understand science or scientific process. Science is all about objective evidence. If your ‘complimentary medicines’ can provide absolute proof that they work, then they need to publish the results in peer-reviewed journals.
Remember, a lot of medicines are indeed based on natural ingredients. Such as aspirin.
Alternative medicine is medicine that has either not yet been proven not to work, or proven not to work. Thus, if the alternative medicine world wants to be taken seriously, they need to show the evidence. Just like western medicine has to.
A
31/01/2012
Science, and the scientific method, is one academic frame through which we can strucutre our enquiry. It has led to some powerful advances, especially in healthcare and medicine. But it also has its drawbacks. In assuming that all research moves us closer towards an ultimate fixed ‘truth’ (left over, I guess, from the Linnaean notion that the world was created at some stage and species were fixed across time), it seems to deny the diversity and unpredictability of both organisms and humans. We are constantly changing and evolving, and we are not passive but active agents in the world. Science isn’t so good at capturing that. But that’s ok – you can’t be good at everything, right?!
Other types of health investigation that do not necessarily draw on the scientific method can equally contribute novel and robust perspectives, and it is possible that broadening our toolkit of academic frameworks beyond that of science might lead to even greater discoveries. A silly analogy, maybe, but you don’t learn everything about one organism, for instance, simply by looking at it from one angle or using one approach. You have to see it from many different angles. And smell it, and taste it, and touch it, and ask it questions, and interact with it…
Science, and the cause-and-effect approach, does not have all the answers, or we wouldn’t have all these enduring problems! For example, non-communicable disease is an incredibly complex social, political and economic phenomenon. Chronic pain is often mysterious and untreatable. HIV/AIDS continues to be spread even though we have ways in which it could scientifically be prevented in a laboratory. Bacteria develop drug resistance. The placebo effect! Alternative medicines confer health to a great deal of users. Science cannot explain why. But that is not to say that the benefits are not there, or that people are all liars. The benefits that are there, however, are terribly hard to investigate with science alone. These are things we cannot study in a laboratory, because (for example) isolating key chemical compounds in an effort to produce controlled experimentation (a principle upon which the success of scientific enquiry is founded) takes them out of the context and social environment from which they derive their efficacy.
To those of us curious about the world, it is an exciting challenge to find new ways of approaching old problems that are able to compliment what we can learn using the scientific approach. The health value of human touch, of the diagnostic process and not just treatment, of social interaction, even of pain infliction. There is some really interesting research that is being done on these in other academic fields and using non-science yet very robust framekworks.
If such approaches have the capacity to heal, it seems to me that we should not simply be afraid of the unknown and disregard them because one particular (and powerful) academic approach cannot understand them. Should people be denied health care just because science cannot understand it? I do not really understand how science can debunk something that is beyond its capacity to study, but surely it is more interesting to consider more closely why these treatments remain such a successful mystery by taking novel approaches to studying and teaching them, rather than simply condemn something that has brought health to many?
The ultimate power of any of these academic approaches is derived from the value placed in it by governments, researchers and industry. I personally think that it is up to us, the academics, to challenge the hegemony of any one academic framework and instead push the boundaries by taking novel and creative (and equally academically-robust) approaches to problems that science cannot tackle alone. But that’s just me. And I’m just a science student.
Evan
02/05/2012
No one said that science yet has all the answers. Science is a process that uses evidence … it is a slow and deliberate process that continually challenges itself and re-tests. As a science student, you should know this.
But at least science can back itself up with evidence. We require that in a legal system, we should require that for our health as well. Will this treatment work, or are you wasting your time? I want proof that something will work, not just someone’s wild theory. Imagine if the legal system didn’t have something so rigourous.
All western medicine demands is that the public is given the truth about all medical procedures so they can make informed decisions and perhaps save their own life. It’s not western medicine bigotry – it’s actually a very noble pursuit in the interest of the human race.
Winnie Lai
03/02/2012
Nature rules. Not science. What is new scientific discovery today can be overturned by another scientific discovery tomorrow. Science does not have an answer to everything. Science should not dismiss things it fails to quantify.
Science has its place. Modern medicine has its place. But initiating attacks such as this demonstrates arrogance and narrow-mindedness. The bull dog attitude Friends of Science in Medicine adopts is an illness in itself.
Chinese Medicine has been around for thousands of years. The difference between it and modern medicine is that we respect the patient’s subjective feeling. Measuring it against so-called evidence based criteria developed for modern medicine is like having a kindergarten kid marking a PhD thesis.
Modern medicine often looks at things in isolation and not necessarily as a whole. For example, it would test the effectiveness of one component of a herb and not necessarily the entire herb or the entire herbal formula – therefore ignoring the role ‘synergy’ plays. Modern medicine also doesn’t consider the individual’s body constitution.
Dr isaac Golden
03/02/2012
Homeopathy was “discredited” by the Lancet in 2005 when the editor announced “the death of Homeopathy”, on the basis of a meta analysis by Shang and others showing that homeopathy didn’t work. Shang did not publish their data to allow others to confirm their findings (which should have immediately rendered the article unpublishable – but not for the Lancet)
After two years it was demonstracted that Shang fraudently manipulated the data and cherry picked an handful of trials for inclusion to give them the result they wanted. When the full data set was eventually obtained and was properly evaluated using accepted methods, it was shown that the results were positive to homeopathy.
So much for the deceit constantly found in “science”, and the blatant hypocricy when anyone who reads journals knows that the majority of scientific medicine is NOT evidenced based (look at bmjonline for example).
There are things modern medicine does brilliantly and that should be fully acknowledged and used by all – and there are things CAM modalities do brilliantly and should be acknowledged and used by all. This should not be a competition – the patients needs should transend money and prestige – and the best is a combination of the best of all modalities.
BTW – read your medical journals – randomised controllled trials have many weaknesses – as a recent article title said it is a “one legged stool” (look it up)
Chris
04/02/2012
Ah, the arguments of the ignorant and poorly educated are so amusing…. and so disheartening… *sigh*
Those who blindly attack “Western science” or “Western medicine” for being arrogant, are demonstrating two things:
1. You don’t understand what science actually is (and by extension logic, rational argument, etc.)
2. You are demonstrating that you don’t even know enough to know that you don’t know.
Rick A.
04/02/2012
When the medical fraternity can claim a 100% success rate we will grant them the sole authority to decide what and how medicine is practiced. Until then they should keep their heads down in the parchment and concentrate on their own failings.
Evan
02/05/2012
The medical fraternity does not claim 100% success rate. They aim to protect the public from charlatans claiming cures that have absolutely no evidence to back them up. It is not western medicine bigotry, it is a noble pursuit to help the public make informed decisions about their health and perhaps save their life.
It shows how little you know about Western medicine and the scientific process. We do concentrate on our own failings and are in constant pursuit to improve things. Do you ever see research facilities run by chiro’s, osteo’s, homeopaths or naturopathists? No. Yet there is billions being spent and thousands upon thousands of medical researchers doing real work on real medicine to give real treatment alternatives, cures and preventative options to real patients in real trouble.
It’s actually quite competitive too.
If you get a disease – where are you going to go? To a homeopath, and then die? To a naturopath, and then die? To a chiro, and then die? Or to a real medical practitioner, who might be able to help you with tested treatments that have been shown to work? No, not all the answers have been found – but that is the pursuit, and one day, you will need us.
Before you make such disparaging remarks about a community that are only trying to help prolong your life and make you healthier, try reading up on the progress in medical science and you will be amazed by the results of dedicated and hard working researchers and practitioners.
J Cowley
04/02/2012
I don’t have strong views on evidence based medicine or alternative medicine. But I do find the recent attempt by these medical academics to influence Universities re alternative medicine degrees quite astounding. It confronts the very basics of freedom of knowledge. And it makes these signatories look like a totalitarian outfit that wants to stop certain knowledge and disciplines of knowledge. They claim they are protecting consumers, but consumers want the right to choose. I have spent 30 years listening to consumers and seeing the changes-and the big reason they go to alternative medicine is they don’t trust the medical theorists.
There is a vast amount of criticism of scientific medical research ranging from the statistical analyses, the commercial backing, the “club” that approves Government funded research, fraud in research etc etc. I look at many medical papers and am amazed at the range of variables in human behaviour and history they just don’t even take into account as perhaps impacting their results. Yet they call this evidence based medicine. They don’t even ask about some factors that are critical in some studies. The studies wouldn’t get through at the basic level if it they were commercial research researching say cement ! And yet the results go into the pot pourri of EBM. We should be demanding that research bodies put non-medical statisticians/researchers onto the national grants panels to get some new blood into this closed shop that self perpetuates.
Just do a quick search on the Internet (problems with EBM) -EBM has major problems.
Its time they got their own houses in order before they pick on other disciplines. The arrogance of saying that the world is only the way they see it, and universities should only teach that way, is a total affront to what universities stand for. Soon they will be saying its wrong to teach theology or islamic studies because they are just outdated ways of seeing things; or aspects of nutrition, or what next?
And many of those fantastic GP’s, Nurses and others who actually see patients (and don’t just live in academia) use complementary and alternative approaches as they understand that evidence is much more varied than a computer model based on assumptions which ay or may not be true.
And yes I do have a few degrees and I am a genuine Dr. not just an honorary title. This groups action has taken me from a neutral on medicine to someone who is now talking to everyone about the dangers that groups like this pose to freedom in a knowledge economy. I cannot believe their arrogance.
Logrunner
26/02/2012
Somebody should respond to this!
The argument for teaching the humanities does not come from whether the subject matter is right or wrong, but is concerned with ideas not appropriate for scientific analysis eg whether a poem is beautiful or not. This is crucially different from teaching something as part of a science curriculum where if it is not evidence based it cannot be called science. That is almost a definition of what science is. You criticise failings of EBM but that is no argument to abandon it.
But to deal with your other matters, the crux of your argument seems to be that one can take a semi-commercial attitude to alternative medicine in that things that work will naturally survive, and there is no need for anyone to interfere. Would you therefore see nothing wrong in mercury being prescribed as a laxative, as in the past? Please don’t raise evidence of harm as an issue, as you have no strong views on evidence based medicine. People who claim to cure cancer by benign but ineffective treatments can be seen as just as dangerous if they effectively prevent more conventional treatments.
For me this is an extreme libertarian view. I think society does need to protect its members both from plain charlatans and the deluded, however well meaning. You draw the line where people make false claims and the only way to assess this is based on evidence.
J Cowley
26/02/2012
Thanks for your comments longrunner and we seem to agree that in the ideal world we would want to have evidence for the things we think will prevent ill health and treat ill health. There are however many branches of science, (I am not talking about humanities here) In business as in physics and geology etc we do scientific research. But science is not just limited to controlled randomised trials as used heavily in Western medicine. That use has brought great benefits, but it also is a lot more fallible than (in research choice/design/method/analytics/inclusion of variables etc etc) it often makes out to be. I would however also support such research in alternative medicine as I understand from reading many alternatives medicine people also support its use.
However, this group seem to want to control such research within their narrow discipline paradigms. As scientists we can use various paradigms and designs and methods. So we should let the alternative medicine people use what they consider are appropriate, and let the evidences that come out from both Western and Alternative medicine be open to public scrutiny, not remove from Universities the right to teach and therefore research such.
So what I am saying is both houses have to get their house in order, but there is no excuse for one group to try to remove from universities other areas of learning-thats where the arrogance comes in.
Interestingly from what i know of current consumer sentiment/trust towards some areas of science and their commercial influences it might (LOL) be better for CAM to be outside of science in the long term !
A much better approach for a group of eminent people like this would be to negotiate a joint body where the two areas of medicine can look at their respective strengths and weaknesses and at the scope to build together on their strengths. That would be aligned more to were consumers are.
No I am not saying treatments should be continued to be offered if proved harmful or ineffective….but Western and CAM medicine have and continue to suffer from this same problem.
And anyone working in this area in research really should move to recognise the much broader range of lifestyle and other variables impacting results, which seem sadly lacking in so much medical research.
Logrunner
27/02/2012
Well, you have clarified that I was wrong to think that you wished to return to pre-enlightenment days, which I think I reasonably concluded from your original post.
I wonder what other ways there are that alternative medicine might validate itself. I am sure all treatment methods would want a piece of that, if it saves on all those tiresome and problematic tests. It is also one thing to demonstrate an effect, but this would be very unsatisfactory until a possible mechanism for the efficacy has been established.
I’m afraid I think that you have a pollyanna view of what is going on at universities that teach alternative medicine. The key driver I think it reasonable to suppose is commercial; they will teach anything people are prepared to pay money for. I say this because research does not appear to come into it. They teach stuff such as homeopathy where best efforts have failed to demonstrate has any validity. Do you really defend teaching energy medicine?
I guess there must be alternative therapies that do promise benefit, but I imagine they form a very short list, except where they parallel more conventional medicine.
Evan
02/05/2012
The beautiful thing about science is that it doesn’t matter whether you agree or don’t agree. Science is not democratic; the truth is the truth even if you don’t agree.
Medical science is only trying to work out how disease can be effectively prevented, diagnosed or treated … using evidence. If there is no evidence, it is not science. If the various alternative ‘medical’ fields want to continue, then they need to provide evidence that they actually work. It is not arrogance to want the best treatment options for the public – that is why there is billions spent and thousands upon thousands of researchers working so hard.
When you get really sick, life threatening sick, you are going to be grateful you didn’t go to the chiropractor to cure your infection, or cancer, or alzheimer’s disease.
The scary thing is your arrogance and ignorance is not rare. But, maybe this will be darwinianism in disguise. Good luck.
Bel
04/02/2012
I have a problem with a doctor telling me that chemo-therapy will kill cancer when the science based evidence tells it doesnt.
I am not referring to the 3% that gets tossed about. It like many other treatments, including complementary or alternative, aid the patient in their fight with their disease.
Whether it is medical medicine, alternative medicine, complementary medicine or a placebo medicine that is used – all of the trials can be done to disprove or prove according to the political agenda being touted.
The patient doesn’t care if you think its right or not, the patient only cares if it works.
Stop being about the politics and the money and start practising medicine.
sam
06/02/2012
Being part of the medical profession, I’m appalled by the narrow minded views of Prof John Dyer and the so called ‘friends of medicine’ group who it seems need a reality check!! Just analysing the sheer numbers of people seeking alternative/complementary medicine is an indication that we NEED a greater level of understanding and acknowledgment of other modalities of healing. By stopping further education into these areas at university level will only serve to alienate the medical community and from the wealth of the knowledge that can be gained.
We need to work towards integrating medical care and acknowledge the huge body of work being done outside of the medical arena. We must continue to allow into our universities and organisations, where we have the brightest minds, open discussions into ALL of the possibilities for health and disease management. For many this may mean opening yourselves to what you previously thought of as a possibility whether it be conventional or complimentary! We must COLLECTIVELY work and seek the best treatments and options for an individual who is under-going a particular disease process. This is not a one size fits all scenario!
To those who consider complementary or alternative practices as ‘nonsense’ I would like to suggest that you get better educated!!! There is a huge array of literature, growing body of evidence and work that is available from all over the globe. Do yourselves, your patients and the world a service and open yourselves up to these new possibilities!!
On a personal note, if you ever had the misfortune of an incurable illness ‘murdering a shark for its fin in a soup bowl’ may or may not be the remedy that works but wouldn’t you be grateful if an open minded and intelligent community had at-least considered this as a possibility.
J Cowley
06/02/2012
Great Comment Sam. I am not a medic…but I do move in some interesting circles. And this group FSM is being discussed by people who are not medics, and overall they are seen as the height of arrogance in what they have put forward. They have succeeded in losing friends in one step. They are a walking brand disaster and perhaps some of the signatories have not realised what they signed up to be perceived as. Some are now suggesting that if these are the people who control the grant funding bodies and have these views, then its time for a Government enquiry into their power base, because of the obvious bias which will impact grant applications. This is not just a medical issue any longer-its a political issue.
Sonia
14/02/2012
Thank you, Sam. I agree with you completely.
Why is this debate being had in such an agressive and disrespectful manner? Certainly, at my university, we are encouraged to work WITH The GP or the neurologist etc..ask opinions and act accordingly. There sees to be this overwhelming element of ‘the mighty medical world who know everything’ versus those who dare to question that or, heaven forbid, doubt!
I would like to see more collaboration with the two sectors and making ‘comportmentary’ a more accurate descriptor.
Evan
02/05/2012
Hmmm … you’re a medic?
I think you are missing the point. The issue at hand is, these alternative medicines do not have any credible evidence that has been published in peer-review journals. There isn’t any real research behind them.
Alternative medicine either has not yet been proven to work, or has been proven not to work. Thus, in the case of the former, the branches of alternative medicine need to provide objective and replicable evidence that they are effective – or even more than effective, than western medicine.
Until then … start researching.
Trilokatma
06/02/2012
The majority of conventional medical treatments are not supported by high level evidence. In fact most of the systemmatic reviews that have been published have found that conventional treatments are not very effective and in many cases are actually more harmful than no treatment. The FSM are very good at twisting the facts to suit their very narrow and selfish agenda. I challenge this group to declare their sources of funding and to intelligently debate these issues.
sansscience
06/02/2012
Perhaps then you should practice what you preach and declare that you work for a company selling herbal and Chinese medicine remedies?
As far as I’m aware the group has zero sources of funding – it seems to be run on a shoestring by motivated, intelligent and concerned people. If you’ve got any evidence that they’re receiving funding from anyone, then please share it or don’t smear people.
Stephen Falken
07/02/2012
Noone today was around to see plagues, smallpox, polio and the like. Most people don’t know what a ‘death cart’ is.
Otherwise this debate would not exist.
You are spoiled brats.
Dr D
08/02/2012
There are more appropriate (I nearly said natural) places that can provide these courses in pseudoscience if they want to – it’s not like they are being stamped out. But they will lose the suggestion of legitimacy that is given to them by being offered by a University. In many cases, the numbers of students enrolled in these courses is falling drastically and the entrance requirements are falling in parallel. They are belief-based courses and have no place in a University full stop – certainly not in science or medical faculties that are (or should be) teaching science based on evidence. The argument that the students learn a lot of conventional biology in these courses is irrelevant. Yes they learn some biology and then in their next lecture (on pseudoscience), the lecturer says ignore all that and embrace the woo. The UK has got it right – Universities will close them down, students in any case will largely vote with their feet (and their fess) and they will disappear like a coffee enema.
sansscience
09/02/2012
WordPress needs a ‘like’ button
Prof Alex J Crandon
08/02/2012
It is hard to remember when I have ever before come across such a condensed load of rubbish as here and all from the supporters of alternative medicine. I am not certain whether you are just intentionally ignoring the point from FSM or you are just basically obtuse.
None of the members of FSM are against alternative medicine per se. What we are asking for is the evidence that it works. All we are told is: “it works!” and therefore we should accept this statement. When we push a bit harder for evidence we are given anecdotes but again that’s not evidence; if I drive Brisbane to Sydney without a seatbelt and don’t have an accident that doesn’t prove it’s safe to drive without a seatbelt. Yes, many of the clinical trials of conventional medicine are found to have some flaws but at least we keep testing and we put our results out in the public arena to be perused and questioned. Alternative medicine just says that we should believe them.
We recognise that many of our effective agents come from natural origins but we have isolated the active ingredient and give just that ingredient rather than a plethora of chemicals not knowing what works.
At the Qld Centre for Gynaecological Cancer we have for years been following the survival of those patients who elect to use alternative medicine to treat their cancer. Their survival is the same as those patients who for whatever reason have no treatment at all.
Just show us some tangible evidence!
beej
09/02/2012
http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/great-animals-pets-funny-9.jpg
sansscience
09/02/2012
Hi Prof Crandon, thanks for venturing into the primordial sludge that my comments section has turned into ever since I started talking about FSM and for providing an actual rational argument. All the best with the FSM!
AJ
09/02/2012
My son at age 10 was missing a day or more off school each week for over 6 month because of migraines. We had him seeing doctors in emergency depts. Specialists at POW hospital 3 separate MRI scans, blood test, etc etc. NOTHING worked.
We took him to a cranial osteopath and after 2 treatments (No manipulation) his headaches stopped. 3 years later he has gone from 2 per week, to 1 per quarter.
Please no one prove that natural therapies are rubbish, as his pain may return.
sansscience
09/02/2012
Hi Aj, I don’t know much about osteopathy, but there doesn’t seem any major reason why some of the techniques couldn’t provide some help for back pain, similarly to physio or chiropractors – I had a quick look on NCCAM and there is some evidence for osteopathy and helping with back pain.
I think it’s a bizarre distinction to call some therapies are natural and others not – why would what an osteopath does be considered ‘natural’ while what a physio does is ‘unnatural’? If some of the osteopathy techniques work (as distinct from any ideologies behind those techniques), then why do they need to partition themselves off as ‘natural therapies’? Why couldn’t you take the bits that have been shown to be some help for back pain from physio, osteopathy and chiropractics and combine them as a subject in a physio course?
Also, I’d just like to say that no one is saying that you can’t attend any alternative medicine practitioner of your choice, whether or not there’s any evidence for them – this blog post is talking about how things that have been extensively studied and completely discredited, such as homeopathy, shouldn’t be taught as ‘science’ in health science degrees at universities (but they’re welcome to go get training in a natural therapy college if they want). And the problem is that there are some people who seem to ideologically cling on to all ‘alternative therapies’ (whatever than means) and won’t accept that some things get shown to work, and others get shown not to work or discredited and you need to let go of those ideas if you want health science to continue moving forward and improving.
Logrunner
18/02/2012
We live in a media world where ‘ jack is as good as his master’ to coin a politically incorrect phrase. The scientific analysis of the expert has equal attention with the anecdotes of the uninformed or straight uneducated.
Opinion may be equally divided on a topic but that does not mean there is equal balance of arguments. 45% of Americans don’t believe in evolution but what does that prove?
So we end up with insane debates where a number of participants simply cannot understand the simple proposal that any science taught at Uni should be subject to the scientific method.
Doubtless there are many sincere alternative medicine exponents but as a parallel I always reflect is if Yuri Geller really could bend spoons, why he did not want to become the real superhero by enabling scientists to understand some new remarkable principle.
The answer that will doubtless be put is that Science is in a conspiracy against alternative medicine. Once you descend into this type of argument I don’t think you can progress.
AJ
22/02/2012
Yuri Geller was a magician/illusionist, so not sure how he has entered the debate.
Just as the word conspiracy may be the fallback of the “uneducated and uninformed”
Once the “Educated” use the word Quackery , they too have forfeited the right to “Informed” debate.
Once the uninformed believe that the “Friends of Science in Medicine” are truly advocating on their behalf, then they will gain credibility. But every time the “experts” speak, they do it with such contempt and arrogance they only appear to be acting in self interest.
Dismiss me as a fool if you will, but if you venture into the world of the uninformed and uneducated you will realise that the medical profession no longer enjoys the mantle of infallibility.
People are now realising that when it comes to chronic disease and cancer they do not have as much to offer as they think they do, and that is the sad part.
They do not realise what they don’t know, or understand, and have no incentive to find out.
Maybe University will help to unravel the science.
Logrunner
25/02/2012
The point regarding Yuri Geller was that he claimed to have special powers yet to be discovered by science, and was not just doing magic. I still await his Nobel prize.
I am neither a scientist nor in the medical field. I cannot answer why you have these prejudices against the medical profession. I can only observe that I think you are incorrect in feeling that the medical profession overstates it capabilities. For example, if I had cancer the dialogue with the physician would be about likely survival rates over time, and these may be quite low. Nothing infallible here.
By contrast, I think it is the height of arrogance to carry out alternative treatments where evidence of efficacy is lacking. By evidence, I mean of course via formal trials rather than the odd anecdote.
Some alternative treatments are plausible and may well be beneficial but it is vital that their practitioners take on the duty of providing the evidence.
Alternative medicine is at its most dangerous when dealing with conditions such as cancer. Common sense tells me that chewing a few berries, so to speak, or energy treatments will not cure faults at a cellular level any more than they can cure a broken leg. Perhaps the medical profession get very concerned and even exasperated, but I do not call that prejudice. Contempt may well be appropriate.
If Universities who have ventured into this area were genuinely researching there would be no difficulty. Rather they have the arrogance to teach it regardless of the lack of any scientific evidence. Indeed, I understand that some courses are as much concerned with the commercial aspects of setting up an alternative medicine business than any seeking after truth.
Jovan Vlajsavljevich
24/02/2012
Recently released US Government statistics showed that in the past 27 years there have been no deaths attributed to vitamin supplements, but over 3 MILLION deaths attributed to prescription medicines. The death toll due to prescription medicines in the US since 2009 has overtaken the annual traffic accident road toll. The Australian government’s own death statistics show that over 18,000 people die each year due to Western medical practices. The arrogance of Western medicine is clearly shown in the terminology they use i.e. other medicinal practices are called alternative or complimentary, even though they have been used successfully for many thousands of years. The goal of the pharmaceutically driven medical industry is to increase profits at all costs. The financial statements of the pharmaceutical companies all show that their advertising budget is four times their research budget. It’s obvious the medical profession have overlooked the Hippocratic oath which went along the lines ‘BUT MOST OF ALL PHYSICIAN, DO NO HARM!’ Do those supporting the FSM believe this is an acceptable annual loss of life? Have they had a brain operation which removes the conscience? Does having the latest Mercedes Benz or BMW justify this appalling loss of life?
sansscience
24/02/2012
Who said anything about the medical profession – this is about pseudoscience in university science courses.
A PhDing research scientist is earning less than a cleaner or a garbage collector, so no BMWs in sight. And even if I’m earning a proper wage, none of my pay or funding has anything to do with any sort of pharmaceutical company. On the other hand, I could make lots of money selling alternative therapies – the global market is estimated to be US$83 billion annually. Some colleagues I’ve worked with receive funding from alternative/natural remedy companies, so does that mean you can generalise and say we’re all financially biased pro-CAM?
So vitamin pills don’t cause deaths and medicines do – are you proposing getting rid of all medicines and using vitamin pills instead? I’m pretty sure if you started treating heart attacks, HIV, strokes, tuberculosis, cancer, etc with vitamin pills you’d have a lot of dead people very fast.
http://sansscience.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/testing-remedies-and-trying-arguments-pseudoscience-vs-fsm/#10x
dan
08/03/2012
The world would be a much better place if orthodox medicine, science and natural medicine joined together for the good of the patient instead of battling one another. Orthodox medicine seem to have this snob nose opinion towards natural medicine simply because it’s invading their territory. Why can’t we just get along? If your banged up in a car accident then orthodox medicine is best but if you want to increase your energy, health and happiness or treat a less life threatening illness or find out how to help increase your odds in preventing these life threatening diseases or when the doctor turns you away and says “im sorry there is nothing more we can do for you, you have 2 months to live,” then see a naturopath. Drugs have their place but not for every single little problem we have. In regards to the homeopathy subject, vibrational medicine like homeopathy does sound a bit bullcrap but when you keep hearing people talk about how they use homeopathy on their children or their pets and are getting results you have to wonder a bit, especially with the fact that when it comes to babies and animals the placebo effect cant really be justified.
sansscience
12/03/2012
People see what they want to see. Go look up confirmation bias. It’s why a properly designed study not only includes a placebo, but it will also be double blinded. This means that not only doesn’t the patient not know whether they’re getting the placebo or not, but neither does the scientist/medico who’s observing the experiment. This is because people, even if they’re scrupulously honest, will tend to see what they want to see.
As for animals, here’s a couple of discussions to start you off:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2011/jan/05/homeopathy-ban-prescription-pets
http://skeptivet.blogspot.com.au/2009/07/placebo-effect-in-animals-and-their.html