I very regularly get comments criticising me for being negative and destructive rather than using my time being positive and constructive. Here is a recent such remark:
Edzard, with his string of qualifications, should offer a remedy to the coronavirus. Ok, I get it, homeopaths are “quacks” but what has Edzard got to offer. Talk is cheap. Rather than warming on the “inability” of the homeopaths to prove their worth, Edzard should prove that he is better than them but sadly he is simply someone who has no substance. What good is he to mankind and the patients when he cannot offer a solution but rather finds faults with “quacks”. That even a beggar can do better than him. Until he is able to offer a cure, he has no business going around finding fault with others.
It is true that many if not most of my posts are about disclosing bogus claims of practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) or revealing the limitations of SCAM research. I see why SCAM proponents see this as a negative activity. However, I view it as a positive contribution: if I show today that this or that claim or therapy is not evidence-based, I might prevent some patients from using it tomorrow. In turn, this would prevent them from wasting their money and – more importantly – would guide them towards making prudent therapeutic decisions which, in some cases, could even save lives.
Other critics of my work are keen to point out that I should not constantly criticise SCAM but rather do something about the many weaknesses of conventional medicine. I feel that my work might be helpful for that as well. Let me explain.
Pointing out how much of SCAM is bogus begs the question, why then are so many people using it? One answer which I have often given (here and elsewhere) is that consumers are looking not so much for effective treatments but for what used to be called the ‘art’ of medicine:
- sufficient time with their clinician,
- a warm therapeutic relationship.
These are things they often do not find when consulting their conventional physicians, and these are things they often get from their SCAM practitioner. This insight should lead to the next logical step, namely to boost compassion, emapthy, etc. in conventional medicine.
Clearly, these qualities are at the core of good healthcare, and clearly we do not require SCAM for patients to benefit from them. The science and the ‘art’ of medicine are not mutually exclusive; there is no good reason why they should not go together. And it is time to put the ‘art’ back into science-based medicine. Delegating it to SCAM practitioners is a disservice to patients.
So, what good is my work to mankind and patients? This is a question that I cnnot answer. All I can do is hope that my criticism will make a small contribution towards improving future healthcare.