quackery
The BBC has a popular program entitled JUST ONE THING presented by Dr, Michael Mosely. In each of these short broadcasts, Mosely presents JUST ONE THING that will make your life more healthy. Whenever I listen to them, I get slightly irritated. Mosely is clearly a very skilled presenter and makes complicated things easy to understand; but for my taste his approach is totally devoid of critical thinking. This is obviously the point of the series and probably one reason for its success. So, maybe it needs to be tolerated – perhaps, but surely not if it seriously misleads the public on important health issues.
The most recent broadcast was entitled EMBRACE THE RAIN and, in my view, it did cross this crucial line. Mosely explained that after it has rained, the air is full of negative ions and these ions are effective against depression. The center piece was his interview with Prof Michael Terman who explained some of his research on the subject, in particular a clinical trial which showed that intensely ionized air was effective against depression. Terman explained that this was more than a placebo effect, that it worked even for serious chronic depressed patients, and that the effect was better than standard treatments.
At no stage was there an even mildly critical question from Mosely. Consequently many depressed patients might now abandon their standard treatments and opt for air ionizers in their homes or walks in the rain which was deemed to be just as effective. In view of the fact that chronic depression, through its suicide risk, can be a life-threatening condition, I find this rather concerning.
My concerns were not exactly alleviated when I did a quick search for the evidence. The most recent review on the subject states that there has been considerable interest in the potential effects of negative air ions (NAIs) on human health and well-being, but the conclusions have been inconsistent and the mechanisms remain unclear. So, why does Terman promote NAIs as though they are the best thing since sliced bread? It took me less than a minute to find a possible answer: he holds a patent for a NEGATIVE ION GENERATOR!
It is laudable of the BBC and Michael Mosely to present aspects of healthcare in a simple, understandable way. Yet, it would be even more laudable, if they did their homework a bit better and, crucially, tried to also educate the public in critical thinking. After all ’embracing the rain’ will not change lives but critical thinking most certainly does!
If you assumed that the best management of a child by chiropractors is not to treat this patient and refer to a proper doctor, think again. This paper was aimed at building upon existing recommendations on best practices for chiropractic management of children by conducting a formal consensus process and best evidence synthesis. Its authors composed a best practice guide based on recommendations from current best available evidence and formal consensus of a panel of experienced practitioners, consumers, and experts for chiropractic management of pediatric patients. They thus syntheized results of a literature search to inform the development of recommendations from a multidisciplinary steering committee, including experts in pediatrics, followed by a formal Delphi panel consensus process.
The consensus process was conducted June to August 2022. All 60 panelists completed the process and reached at least 80% consensus on all recommendations after three Delphi rounds. Recommendations for best practices for chiropractic care for children addressed the following aspects of the clinical encounter:
- patient communication, including informed consent;
- appropriate clinical history, including health habits;
- appropriate physical examination procedures;
- red flags/contraindications to chiropractic care and/or spinal manipulation;
- aspects of chiropractic management of pediatric patients, including infants;
- modifications of spinal manipulation and other manual procedures for pediatric patients;
- appropriate referral and comanagement;
- appropriate health promotion and disease prevention practices.
The authors concluded that this set of recommendations represents a general framework for an evidence-informed and reasonable approach to the management of pediatric patients by chiropractors.
Whenever I read the term ‘evidence-informed’ I need to giggle. Why not evidence-based? Evidence-informed might mean that chiros are informed that their treatments are useless or even dangerous for children … but, on reflection and taking their own need for earning a living, they subsequently ignore these facts. And sure enough, the authors of the present paper do mention that a Cochrane review concluded that spinal manipulation is not recommended for children under 12, for a number of conditions, or for general wellness … only to then go on and ignore the very fact.
In doing so, the authors issue a string of self-evident platitudes which occasionally border on the irresponsible. For instance, under the heading of ‘primary prevention’, vaccinations are mentioned as the very last item with the following words:
If parents ask for advice or information about childhood vaccinations, explain that they have the right to make their own health decisions. They should be adequately informed about the benefits and risks to both their child and the broader community associated with these decisions. Consider referral to a health professional whose scope of practice includes vaccinations to address patient questions or concerns.
What that really means in practice, I fear, might be summarized like this: If parents ask for advice or information about childhood vaccinations, explain that they are dangerous, and that even D. D. Palmer recognized as early as 1894 that vaccination is ‘…the monstrous delusion … fastened on us by the medical profession, enforced by the state boards, and supported by the mass of unthinking people …’
Altogether, the ‘Clinical Practice Guideline for Best Practice Management of Pediatric Patients by Chiropractors’ is a thoroughly disreputable document. It was constructed in the way all charlatans tend to construct their consensus documents:
- convene a few people who are all in favour of a certain motion,
- discuss the motion,
- agree with it,
- write up the process
- publish your paper in a third class journal,
- boast that there is a consensus,
- stress that the motion must thereefore be ethical, correct and valuable.
Do chiropractors know that, using this methodology, the ‘flat earth society’ can easily pass a consensus that the earth is indeed flat?
I am sure they do!
‘The Cult of Chiropractic’ is the title of a video that has just been released. I think it is very good and, if you are interested in the subject at all, I recommend you have a look. You can watch it here:
The Cult of Chiropractic : r/h3h3productions (reddit.com)
The video is not just well-done, it also is fun and informative. I learned a few things from it that I did not yet know. It also brings Simon Singh and myself together after we had not met for several years; and that is always a pleasure!
But back to ‘The Cult of Chiropractic’ and the question whether this assumption is true. Some time ago, I published a post about so-called alternative medicine and cultism. I listed a few questions we should ask ourselves to determine whether chiropractic is a cult. Let me adapt them slightly:
- Is chiropractic based on dogma? The answer is yes – think, for instance, of the assumptions that subluxations exist.
- Does chiropractic demand acceptance of its dogma or doctrine as truth? For straight chiropractors, the answer is yes.
- Is the dogma set forth by a single guru or promulgator? Yes, DD Palmer.
- Is chiropractic supposed to cure all ills? For many chiros, the answer is yes.
- Is belief used by chiropractors as a substitute for evidence? Yes.
- Do chiropractors determine their patients’ lifestyle? Yes.
- Do chiros exploit their patients financially? Yes.
- Does chiropractors impose rigid rules and regulations? Yes.
- Do chiros practice deception? Yes.
- Do chiropractors have their own sources of information/propaganda? Yes.
- Do chiros cultivate their own lingo? Yes.
- Do chiros discourage or inhibit critical thinking? Yes.
- Are questions about the values of chiropractic discouraged or forbidden? Yes.
- Do the proponents of chiropractic reduce complexities into platitudinous buzz words? Yes
- Do chiros assume that health problems are the result of not adhering to the dogma? Yes.
- Do chiros instill fear into members who consider leaving? Yes.
- Do chiros depict conventional medicine as ineffective or harmful? Yes.
- Do chiros ask others to recruit new members to their cult? Yes.
Based on these 18 questions, I conclude that chiropractic is indeed a cult. What about you? Even if you disagree, please have a look at the excellent video, ‘THE CULT OF CHIROPRACTIC’.
Conspiracy beliefs (CBs) can have substantial consequences on health behaviours by influencing both conventional and non-conventional medicine uptake. They can target powerful groups (i.e. upward CBs) or powerless groups (i.e. downward CBs). Considering their repercussions in oncology, it appears useful to understand how CBs are related to the intentions to use conventional and so-called alternative medicines (SCAM), defined as “medical products and practices that are not part of standard medical care” including practices
such as mind–body therapies, botanicals, energy healing or naturopathic medicine.
This paper includes two pre-registered online correlational studies on a general French population (Study 1 N = 248, recruited on social media Mage = 40.07, SDage = 14.78; 205 women, 41 men and 2 non-binaries; Study 2 N = 313, recruited on social media and Prolific, Mage = 28.91, SDage = 9.60; 154 women, 149 men and 10 non-binaries). the researchers investigated the links between generic and chemotherapy-related CBs and intentions to use conventional or SCAMs. Study 2 consisted of a conceptual replication of Study 1, considering the orientation of CBs.
Generic CBs and chemotherapy-related CBs appear strongly and positively correlated, negatively correlated with intentions to take conventional medicine and positively with intentions to take SCAM. The link between generic CBs and medication intention is fully mediated by chemotherapy-related CBs. When distinguished, upward CBs are a stronger predictor of chemotherapy-related CBs than downward CBs.
The authors concluded that the findings suggest that intentions to use medicine are strongly associated with CBs. This has several important implications for further research and practice, notably on the presence and effects of CBs on medication behaviours in cancer patients.
Sadly, the influence of CBs is not confined to the field of oncology but applies across all diseases and conditions. We have seen and discussed these issues in several previous posts, e.g.:
- Conspiracy Beliefs Predict Health Behavior and Well-being during the Pandemic
- Coronavirus conspiracy beliefs, mistrust, and compliance with government guidelines
- Mistrust + Misinformation —> CONSPIRACY THEORY
- Conspiracy theories and dangerous recommendations via YouTube videos
- Conspiracy theories, assumptions, opinions, evidence and scientific facts
- A conspiracy theory seems to be driving the popularity of alternative medicine
The most impressive evidence, however, is regularly being provided by some of the people who post comments on this blog. Collectively, this evidence has prompted me to postulate that SCAM itself can be seen as a consiracy theory.
It has been reported that a cancer patient died of multiple organ failure after he took a herbalist’s remedy that included mistletoe. Retired electrician Haydn Owen Jones had been receiving a third course of treatment for his multiple myeloma when he turned to a herbalist. Alongside two chemotherapy drugs and a steroid, Jones started using a remedy which included mistletoe, yarrow, lily of the valley, cat’s claw, echinacea, and corn silk. Days later he fell ill with a fever, swelling and a rash. He was treated for sepsis but never recovered as his liver function deteriorated. Coroner concluded that it was probable the mix of cancer drugs and the alternative therapy proved deadly to him.
Mistletoe contains Phoratoxin and Viscotoxin – both of which are poisonous when ingested. While a more severe reaction is caused from eating the berries than the leaves, possible symptoms can include nausea, heart problems and fever.
_____________________
As with all tragic cases of this nature, it is difficult or even impossible to establish what caused the death. Was the herbal remedy involved at all? If so, it could be the toxicity of one or more of its ingredients, interactions between them, interactions with prescribed drugs, or contaminations/adulterations of the remedy. If there is a lesson at all to learn from this case, it is, I think, this: be very cautious about using herbal remedies, particularly when combined with other medicines, and seek professional advice, preferably NOT from a herbalist.
Mistletoe, an anthroposophical medicine, is often recommended as a so-callled alternative medicine (SCAM) for cancer patients. But what type of cancer, what type of mistletoe preparation, what dosage regimen, what form of application?
The aim of this systematic analysis was to assess the concept of mistletoe treatment in published clinical studies with respect to indication, type of mistletoe preparation, treatment schedule, aim of treatment, and assessment of treatment results. The following databases were systematically searched: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, CINAHL, and “Science Citation Index Expanded” (Web of Science). The researchers assessed all studies for study types, methods, endpoints and mistletoe preparations including their ways of application, host trees and dosage schedules.
The searches revealed 3296 hits. Of these, 102 publications with a total of 19.441 patients were included. The researchers included several study types investigating the application of mistletoe in different groups of participants: cancer patients with any type of cancer were included as well as studies conducted with healthy volunteers and pediatric patients. The most common types of cancer were:
- breast cancer,
- pancreatic cancer,
- colorectal cancer,
- malignant melanoma.
Randomized controlled studies, cohort studies and case reports make up most of the included studies. A huge variety was observed concerning the type and composition of mistletoe extracts (differing pharmaceutical companies and host trees), ways of applications and dosage schedules. Administration varied widely, e. g. between using mistletoe extract as sole treatment and as concomitant therapy to cancer treatment. The researchers found no relationship between the mistletoe preparation used, host tree, dosage, and cancer type.
A variety of different mistletoe preparations was used to treat cancer patients. Due to the heterogeneity of the mistletoe preparations used, no comparability between different studies or within single studies using different types of mistletoe preparations or host trees is possible. Moreover, no relationship between mistletoe preparation and type of cancer can be observed. This results in a severely limited comparability of studies with regard to the different cancer entities and mistletoe therapy in oncology in general. Analyzing the methods sections of all articles, there are no information on how the selection of the respective mistletoe preparation took place. None of the articles provided any argument which type of preparation (homeopathic, anthroposophic, standardized) or which host tree was chosen due to which selection criteria. Considering preparations from different companies, funding may have been the reason of the selection.
Dosage or dosage regimens varied strongly in the studies. Due to the heterogeneity of dosage and dosage regimens within studies and between studies of the endpoints the comparability of the different studies is severely limited. Duration of mistletoe treatment varied strongly in the studies ranging from a single dose given on one day to the application of mistletoe preparations for several years. Moreover, the duration of treatment frequently varied within the studies. Mistletoe preparations were administered by different ways of application. Most frequently, the patients received mistletoe preparations subcutaneously. The second most common way was intravenous administration of mistletoe preparations. According to the respective manufacturers, this type of application is only recommended for Lektinol® and Eurixor®. Other preparations were given as off-label intravenous applications. No dosage recommendations from the respective manufacturers were available. Only in two studies the dose schedules were mentioned: according to the classical phase I 3 + 3 dose escalation schedule or in ratio to the body surface area.
The authors concluded that despite a large number of clinical studies and reports, there is a complete lack of transparently reported, structured procedures considering all fields of mistletoe therapy. This applies to type of mistletoe extract, host tree, preparation, treatment schedules as well as indication with respect of type of cancer and the respective treatment aim. All in all, despite several decades of clinical mistletoe research, no clear concept of usage is discernible and, from an evidence-based point of view, there are serious concerns on the scientific base of this part of anthroposophical treatment.
A long time ago, I worked as a junior doctor in a hospital where we used subcutaneous misteloe injections regularly to treat cancer. I remember being utterly confused: none of my peers was able to explain to me what preparation to use and how to does it. There simply were no rules and the manufacurer’s instructions made little sense. I suspected then that mistletoe therapy was a danerous nonsense. Today, after much research has been published on mistletoe, I do no longer suspect it, I know it.
I would urge every cancer patient to stay well clear of mistletoe and those practitioners who recommend it.
Here we go, enjoy!
what will I call a billion people who believe in something absurd?
I WOULD CALL THEM SERIOUSLY MISLED AND PERHAPS EVEN STUPID
More than a billion humans know and believe that the cow is “Kamadhenu” or God.
To more than 6 billion people (i.e. rest of the world), cow is NOT god. In fact, a lot of them want to see it served on a plate. If we were to take a vote w.r.t cow’s godliness, it looses sorely.
You are not arrogant, you are plain stupid.
The arrogancy is not mine, it is the Westerners. I was actually supporting the statement that Reiki is not plausible by giving an example from India in which Hindus (there is a billion of them) “know” that the cow is a god. Does it mean that the cow is a god? You folks are very arrogant and no body can save you. Your civilization will definitely be the first one to be doomed. As for the others are concerned, it becomes a blessing that they do not have a civilization
oh, dear!
Even at the time of death healing can help the dying person to ease the transition from this world to the next. Should one not be well versed in spiritual matters it can come as a bit of a shock to realise that one is no longer in a physical body.
…
Death, of the body, is not the end. Life goes on in another dimension. The ´dead´ miss us as much as we miss them. Imagine two big bubbles. You are in one and your loved one is in the other. You cannot touch each other and the bubbles are floating off further and further in different directions. There are a couple of ways in which you can communicate. You can take up telepathy or you can see a medium.— Ralph Maver
[http://www.reikiwithralph.com/more-about-ralph-maver/]
Marvellous!
Only one other dimension? So we become straight lines with ni width or thickness?
Oh, in that dimension, thickness knows no bounds.
So it would appear!
@Ralph William Maver
You are an arrogant person.
Are you certain that you selected the right personal pronoun in this sentence?
I know that Reiki works.
Ah, you must be one of those persons who spent $4000 on a Reiki Level 4 Master Course (or whatever it is called), and are now trying their very best to protect and possibly recoup their investment.
You are one of those people who challenge what they don’t understand.
Sorry to tell you, but you are the one who fails to understand that ‘Reiki’ and all that other bogus ‘energy medicine’ stuff is just a con trick, a way to separate gullible people from their money.
Then again, having taken a look around your Web site, it may well be that you have been the one who was conned first, and are in turn now trying to trick other people – although not very successfully, by the looks of it. I almost feel sorry for you.
My bit of advice: go find another, more honest occupation. This reiki stuff doesn’t work for you. And oh, get a better Web designer.
I don’t have a soul.
Unless we count the Otis Redding, Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye, Curtis Mayfield and all albums…
Next?
I said more than a billion people believe that the cow is god, and instead of reading the rest of the statement, you people, including Edzrad, jumped on me and started calling me names, if only you read the rest of my statement, you would know that I don’t believe in Reiki. But then you revealed your true colours. Truth always goes in hand with compassion, which I guess you do not have. You failed to recognize the racism in your own comment by calling 1 billion people (Hindus) stupid. It is not the stupid people that are destroying the world, but cruelty is spread by the in-compassionate fools. Now go, respond by doing a line-by-line grammar check of my statement. If civilization falls, yours will be the first to fall.
Edzrad, jumped on me and started calling me names”
TEMPTING! BUT I DIDN’T
Now try to spell my name correctly, if you don’t mind.
Your life and existence must be in this thread, so pathetic.
I intentionally misspelt your name expecting to reveal the “ego” component in your statements.
Do you really think a misspelling in your name is so significant? No wonder your country is a philosophical mess, caught in between two ideologies. My concern is that people with your attitude are destroying the rest of the world, like that guy in 1853, American Commodore Matthew Perry who forcefully opened Japan for trade. Not only are you arrogant, but you are also blind. May demise to your civilization come soon.
“Do you really think a misspelling in your name is so significant?”
No, and I did not claim it to be.
I am really not interested in this conversation anymore, yes, it does seem that you are ‘awfully triggered’ and conversing with me. because the replies are almost an instantaneous basis, like the insecure Donald Trump tweeting. “…Now try to spell my name correctly, if you don’t mind.” These are your words, and you now say that you really did not mean it. I am just getting tired as if I am giving directions to a blind and deaf person. I just came to your thread because as a massage therapy student, 8 years ago, I was having an argument with my students and lecturer that non-evidence based therapies should not be promoted aggressively, but with a note and disclaimer because the public are being taken advantage by scamsters providing sham treatment. Now all those things are lost but we are now in a different territory, I was giving the one million Hindu and cow example to demonstrate that sometimes things does not matter, but it has to be handled more in a human way. It seems that you do not have that big heart or genroisty, but instead it seems that you keep this thread live just for fun. And the more time passes, the more small you become in your replies, I am not sure maybe you died and it is your grandson that is maintaining this blog, who knows? Go to hell, do whatever you want. If you want a closure, please block me.
“I am really not interested in this conversation anymore”
By contrast, I never was!
It is you who foisted it on me.
Edzard on Tuesday 24 October 2023 at 17:15
“I am really not interested in this conversation anymore”
By contrast, I never was!
It is you who foisted it on me.
I understand your need to feel good about your actions. I have a bigger heart than you. Hence, I am sorry.
bye bye
“your country is a philosophical mess”
which country are you referring to?
To be specific, I am an RMT, and I don’t believe in Reiki, but that does not mean that we go around insulting people. Why? Because it is not necessary. Only two types of people do unnecessary things (a) fools, and (b) malicious people. How do we know that you are not some sort of psycho living a pathetic life, and you are taking this opportunity to ‘bash’ people, in the name of reason and objectivity? Do you want us to trust you? You just put one billion people beneath by calling them stupid (and the other commenter who would rather see a cow on a plate, how insensitive that comment is? No wonder people hate America and Americans) Initially I thought you were arrogant. I take it back, because I think you are simply malicious (and maybe half your country)…one billion Hindus are stupid? (I gave that as a metaphor, I was born a Hindu, but I am not an hindu, now)
” I am an RMT”
RMT
[RMT]
ABBREVIATION
(in the UK) National Union of Rail, Maritime, and Transport Workers.
Yeah, I am a railroad worker, and I am from the UK. These things make you appear so petty.
“we go around insulting people”
When and how did I insult you?
That is why I said you are blind, and that is why I said that you must belong to a particular demographic. As I said, I am not interested in conversing anymore. I am more honest than you and made my intentions clear. You need not block or moderate me, But there is no point in coming back to this thread.
thanks for that!
The English have the power of speech and the tool of articulation. Using this, they conquer all the world without doing all the hard work or shedding blood, but don’t worry, justice may be late, but it will rule one day, what was got by simply using the tongue, will also be lost using the same tongue. In the end, they will be the most pathetic souls among all life forms:
Edzard on Sunday 15 January 2023 at 08:39
what will I call a billion people who believe in something absurd?
I WOULD CALL THEM SERIOUSLY MISLED AND PERHAPS EVEN STUPID
oh, I see: you think I’m English!
“oh, I see: you think I’m English!”
That was supposed to be an insult, I don’t really care who you are. I don’t care even if I am wrong. You should know that I am not making an effort to know you. I can google you in five minutes, but you are not worth my time. All I know is that you are a troublemaker (Like Donald Trump) who lives just for the fun of it. Trump uses certain things to disguise is contempt and selfishness, you are just using the war against alternative medicine to shield your general malice. You are not a good person, that I know. And I am sure that nobody would have told you that — greatest insult.
Troll: a person who antagonizes (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content
I may be a troll, but you are simply an abuser and maipulator of knowledge, power, and position. At best, I would have annoyed a few people. But you just called one billion people stupid, then guess what your real intentions might be? You have more power to damage the world then me, If I am a troll, you are simply a evil person
Edzard on Tuesday 24 October 2023 at 17:30
Troll: a person who antagonizes (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content
… and I thought the troll had said ‘bye bye’ a while ago…
Really? What are you? an old man aged 70 years or more? Nothing much to do in life anymore?
Can’t let it go without having the last word? Lot’s of peeing match I guess!
Edzard on Tuesday 24 October 2023 at 17:37
… and I thought the troll had said ‘bye bye’ a while ago…
I challenge you to keep all the conversations in between you and me so that people can judge what is going on. If you delete it, it would mean that you do not want people to know, let’s see how honest you are.
I have no intention to delete this comic relief!
Like I said, tongue they use to unleash their malice, by the tongue their souls will die a pathetic death
a characteristic of a troll is that he/she cannot quit easily
That’s right, senile, sadist, probably news does not excite you, so come back and read the comments to feel that you are indeed alive. So pathetic. Bye — If you really think I am a troll, then you probably should not reply, every internet user knows this. But if you are intentionally engaging with a troll, then it means that there is something wrong with you greater than that troll. Like I said, I might be a a troll, but you are even greater than that — an evil person (because you have power, position, influence) — don’t…
It’s not that I think you are a TROLL, you have proven it to us.
If you can call one billion Hindus stupid. I should not mind for you calling me a troll.
And this time, I am deciding to quit. What a bore!
___________________________________________
Re-reading this today, I am still amazed at the mindset of my troll. Perhaps I should by now have got used to it – after all, this sort of thing does happen regularly on this blog. The lesson, I think, is not to let it happen and tell the troll early on to go yonder and multiply.
Robert Jütte, a German medical historian, has long been a defender of homeopathy and other forms of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). His latest paper refers to the situation in Switzerland where the public was given the chance to vote for or against the reimbursement of several SCAMs, including homeopathy. I reported previously about this unusual situation, e.g.:
- More about homeopathy in Switzerland: “Globuli only cause unnecessary healthcare costs”
- More on the situation of homeopathy in Switzerland
- SCAM in Switzerland: paediatricians couldn’t care less
- It’s official: Switzerland is going holistically round the bend
Unsurprisingly, Prof Jütte’s views are quite different from mine. Here is the abstract of his recent paper:
Behind the principle of involving users and voters directly in decision-making about the health care system are ideas relating to empowerment. This implies a challenge to the traditional view that scientific knowledge is generally believed to be of higher value than tried and tested experience, as it is the case with CAM. The aim of this review is to show how a perspective of the history of medicine and science as well as direct democracy mechanisms such as stipulated in the Swiss constitution can be used to achieve the acceptance of CAM in a modern medical health care system. A public health care system financed by levies from the population should also reflect the widely documented desire in the population for medical pluralism (provided that therapeutical alternatives are not risky). Otherwise, the problem of social inequality arises because only people with a good financial background can afford this medicine.
I think that Jütte’s statement that “a public health care system financed by levies from the population should also reflect the widely documented desire in the population for medical pluralism provided that therapeutical alternatives are not risky. Otherwise, the problem of social inequality arises because only people with a good financial background can afford this medicine” is untenable. Here are my reasons:
- Lay people are not normally sufficiently informed to decide which treatments are effective and which are not. If we leave these decisions to the public, we will end up with all manner of nonsense diluting the effectiveness of our health services and wasting our scarce public funds.
- Jütte seems to assume that SCAMs that are not risky do no harm. He fails to consider that ineffective treatments inevitably do harm by not adequately treating symptoms and diseases. In serious conditions this will even hasten the death of patients!
- Jütte seems concerned about inequity, yet I think this concern is misplaced. Not paying from the public purse for nonsensical therapies is hardly a disadvantage. Arguably, those who cannot affort ineffective SCAMs are even likely to benefit in terms of their health.
I do realize that there might be conflicting ethical principles at play here. I am, however, convinced that the ethical concern of doing more good than harm to as many consumers as possible is best realized by implementing the principles of evidence-based medicine. Or – to put it bluntly – a healthcare system is not a supermarket where consumers can pick and chose any rubbish they fancy.
I wonder who you think is correct, Jütte or I?
Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Pseudo-profound bullshit consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous.
In this study, researchers presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”). Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bullshit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements.
The authors concluded that these results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our results also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.
Harry G Frankfurt published his delightful booklet ‘ON BULLSHIT‘ in 2005. Since then, the term ‘bullshit’ has become accepted terminology in philosophy and science. But what exactly is bullshit? Frankfurt explains that is something between a lie and a bluff, perhaps more like the latter than the former.
In another recent article, Fugelsang explains that the growing prevalence of misleading information (i.e., bullshit) in society carries with it an increased need to understand the processes underlying many people’s susceptibility to falling for it. He also reports two studies (N = 412) examining the associations between one’s ability to detect pseudo-profound bullshit, confidence in one’s bullshit detection abilities, and the metacognitive experience of evaluating potentially misleading information.
The results suggest that people with the lowest (highest) bullshit detection performance overestimate (underestimate) their detection abilities and overplace (underplace) those abilities when compared to others. Additionally, people reported using both intuitive and reflective thinking processes when evaluating misleading information. Taken together, these results show that both highly bullshit-receptive and highly bullshit-resistant people are largely unaware of the extent to which they can detect bullshit and that traditional miserly processing explanations of receptivity to misleading information may be insufficient to fully account for these effects.
I am sure that some of the discussions on this blog are excellent examples for people with low bullshit detection performance overestimating their detection abilities and overplacing those abilities.
So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) interventions are growing in popularity and are even advocated as treatments for long COVID symptoms. However, comprehensive analysis of current evidence in this setting is still lacking. This study aims to review existing published studies on the use of SCAM interventions for patients experiencing long COVID through a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
A comprehensive electronic literature search was performed in multiple databases and clinical trial registries from September 2019 to January 2023. RCTs evaluating efficacy and safety of SCAM for long COVID were included. Methodological quality of each included trial
was appraised with the Cochrane ‘risk of bias’ tool. A qualitative analysis was conducted due to heterogeneity of included studies.
A total of 14 RCTs with 1195 participants were included in this review. Study findings demonstrated that SCAM interventions could benefit patients with long COVID, especially those suffering from
- neuropsychiatric disorders,
- olfactory dysfunction,
- cognitive impairment,
- fatigue,
- breathlessness,
- mild-to-moderate lung fibrosis.
The main interventions reported were:
- self-administered transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation,
- neuro-meditation,
- dietary supplements,
- olfactory training,
- aromatherapy,
- inspiratory muscle training,
- concurrent training,
- online breathing programs,
- online well-being programs.
The authors concluded that SCAM interventions may be effective, safe, and acceptable to patients with symptoms of long COVID. However, the findings from this systematic review should be interpreted with caution due to various methodological limitations. More rigorous trials focused on CAM for long COVID are warranted in the future.
Such wishy-washy conclusions seem to be popular in the fantasy land of SCAM. Yet, they are, in my view, most ojectionable because:
- they tell us nothing of value;
- that something “MAY BE EFFECTIVE” has been known before and cannot be the result of but is the reason for a systematic review;
- a review of 14 RCTs of almost as many interventions cannot possibly tell us anything about the SAFETY of these treatments;
- it also does not provide evidence of effectiveness and merely indicates a lack of independent replications;
- if the abstract mentions an assessment of the study rigor, one expects that it also informs us about this important aspect.
Once we do come around looking at the methodological quality of the primary studies we realize that it is mostly miserable. This means that the conclusions of the review are not just irritating but plainly misleading. Responsible researchers should have concluded along the following lines:
The quantity and the quality of the evidence are both low. Therefore, the effectiveness and safety of SCAM interventions for long COVID remains unproven.
PS
This project was financially supported by The HEAD Foundation, Singapore and in part by the grant from the NIH R61 AT01218.
Shame on the authors, journal editors, peer-reviewers, and funders of this dangerous nonsense!
More than a billion humans know and believe that the cow is “Kamadhenu” or God. One can be called a stupid, and two can be called a moron, but what will call you when a billion people believe in something? How about calling all the Indians that believe in the cow as god “Arrogant”? Will that cut it?
I might be arrogant, and i am ok with it. But you are dishonest and contradictory. I would rather be with an arrogant person than a dishonest, ridiculous, or contradicing person. Because I know the dishonest, ridiculous, and contradicting person will cause me more harm than this so-called “arrogant” person. There, I sent you away. Go home and come back tomorrow with a better argument that sounds morally good!