There are uncounted different forms of bogus so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs), and many have been discussed on this blog. What do I mean by ‘bogus’? A bogus SCAM is one, in my view, that is being promoted for conditions for which it does not demonstrably generate more good than harm.
Ten popular examples are:
- alternative cancer ‘cures’,
- applied kinesiology,
- Bach Flower Remedies,
- CEASE,
- chiropractic,
- detox treatments,
- homeopathy,
- osteopathy,
- paranormal or energy healing techniques,
- slimming aids.
These treatments are diverse in many ways: history, basic assumption, risks, etc. But they nevertheless tend to have certain features in common:
- Most SCAMs originate from the ideas developed by a single, often charismatic individual who proclaimed to have seen the light. Think of Gerson, Bach, Palmer, Hahnemann, Still.
- They are recommended by enthusiasts as a panacea, a ‘cure all’.
- They are heavily promoted by celebrities, hyped by the press and marketed via books or the Internet, but they are far less or not at all supported by published studies in the peer-reviewed medical literature.
- The clinical trials of SCAM that have been published are flimsy, lack independent replication, yet are celebrated by proponents as though they represent robust evidence.
- SCAMs target either the most desperately ill patients who understandably tend to cling to every straw they can find. Or they go for the ‘worried well’ who have nothing truly wrong with them and plenty of cash to waste.
- Proponents of SCAM use scientific-sounding terminology, while simultaneously displaying a profoundly anti-scientific attitude.
- Entrepreneurs of SCAM are efficient at selling false hope at excessive prices.
- SCAMs sometimes seem to work because many of the therapists are skilled at maximising the placebo-response.
- SCAM is awash with conspiracy theories, for instance, the notion that ‘the establishment’ is supressing SCAM. (If a SCAM ever showed real promise, it would rapidly scrutinised by researchers and, if effectiveness were confirmed, adopted by conventional medicine. The notion of an alternative cure for any disease is idiotic, because it presupposes that conventional healthcare professionals shun a potentially valuable treatment simply because it emerged from elsewhere.)
- Most SCAMs can do direct harm. For instance, oral treatments can be toxic or interact with prescription drugs. Or spinal manipulations can cause a stroke. Or acupuncture can cause a pneumothorax.
- SCAMs are dangerous even if they do not cause direct harm. There are many examples of people who died needlessly early because they used SCAM as an alternative to conventional medicine (Steve Jobs is a prominent example).
- Moreover, SCAMs cause harm by undermining the principles of EBM and, more importantly, by undermining rational thinking in our society.
- SCAM practitioners violate fundamental rules of medical ethics on a daily basis. One could even argue that the ethical practice of SCAM is rarely possible.
37 Responses to 13 characteristics of bogus so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs)
Leave a Reply to DC Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
There are of course hundreds of SCAMs, but I would also cite two additional charismatics who have significant impact and accord with all the bullet points:
Usui (Reiki is an ‘energy healing’ used by the NHS).
Hubbard (Dianetics is as ‘supernatural’ as they come).
I would add that most Scam “enterprises” typically are the result of individuals producing “curative” products or services through their own means, they are rarely the result of collaborative multi-agency research or a stepped approach to improving established EBM.
Each Scam appears to be an attempt to introduce “revolutionist” principles often by re-introducing superstitious practices.
See the Colloidal Silver SCAM propagated by the Queen of SCAM here: https://goop.com/travel/experiences/fly-better-tricks-for-better-plane-trips/
and roundly kicked here:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/consumer-health/expert-answers/colloidal-silver/faq-20058061
However, there is widespread dissemination of the product across social media platforms and in the UK tabloid press.
Point 9 is a very convincing argument.
You only have to look at the world of technical inventions. If an idea is good and promises money, it is copied, imitated, modified, improved and developed within a short space of time, whether this is done legally, semi-legally or illegally.
As far as I know, however, none of this happens in relation to SCAM.
Over 200000 people dead world wide and counting.
Over 21000 dead in UK and counting. Remember, not in too distant future, the numbers would be higher than that from Italy!
How many of these due to SCAM? Remember Prince Charles? And Mr Johnson the PM?
Over 58% of the population is expected to be infected! Have you planned your medication protocol?
I question number 10, that acupuncture can cause collapsed lung, pneumothorax. Perhaps it can but are not skin infections and hepatitis even greater concerns with acupuncture?
about 10 times more cases of pneumothorax have been reported.
As a footnote to point 9 — the accusations of a long running conspiracy to hush up a simple cure (or by now thousands of cures!), there is also an open hostility to science itself. They see science as a faustian demonic rape and distortion of nature that treats humans as machines, sometimes including some insane babble about biologists using “Newtonian” instead of “quantum” physics. They have to do this, because they need to constantly undermine the status of science to prevent people from even beginning to look into it. And they need to prevent people from realising that science progresses and pseudo-science doesn’t.
(Very thorough and concise list!)
Interesting that you included osteopathy as there are 121,006 osteopaths around the world. And with chiropractic there are around 100,000 providers. Are you claiming they are all practicing “bogus SCAM”?
I too am interested why Osteopathy is on that list? I hope you are not confusing the tool with the profession.
In the UK the profession is regulated by law (as in Australia and New Zealand), and Osteopaths are defined as primary health care. There are some pre-regulation Osteopaths still practicing and there are some rather left field practitioners who ‘slip through the net’, but GOSC are there to minimise their shenanigans.
Osteopaths are also allied health, not alternative. The core of the profession in the UK are working hard to ensure Osteopathy is a safe, effective and ethical treatment modality.
All professions have their rogue practitioners. There are practicing medical doctors who still think Homeopathy is effective, or that Wakefield was right. It doesn’t mean that all medical doctors are like that.
in the post I made this quite clear:
“What do I mean by ‘bogus’? A bogus SCAM is one, in my view, that is being promoted for conditions for which it does not demonstrably generate more good than harm.”
I think you may well be mistaking the tool for the profession, however…
The General Osteopathic Councils (GOSC) Standards of Practice cover this point, mainly in section C1.4 and C1.1 https://standards.osteopathy.org.uk/themes/safety-and-quality-in-practice/
Also B1, specifically 1.3 https://standards.osteopathy.org.uk/themes/knowledge-skills-and-performance/
The Advertising Standards Authority give guidance as to what is legally accepted as having evidence for treatment by Osteopaths. Stepping outside of this can lead to GOSC investigating and if necessary prosecuting – no private lawsuits or funding needed. https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/health-osteopathy.html
I agree treatment that causes more harm than good is not a treatment, but a scam. Could you produce any evidence of a UK Osteopathic institution teaching it’s students how to fleece patients in this way? Or perhaps the examining criteria for registration that allows this?
A suitable anology perhaps – A firearm is perfectly safe in the hands on someone trained in its use and handling, but potentially deadly in the hands of those who aren’t.
so then, show me the EVIDENCE that osteopathic treatment does more good than harm.
I thought the burden of proof lay with the person making the charge?
yes, and the person is the osteopath who claims that his/her treatments do more good than harm.
but as you seem unwilling, let me help:
https://edzardernst.com/2019/03/new-review-confirms-osteopathy-is-not-evidence-based/
https://edzardernst.com/2018/11/osteopathy-not-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/
https://edzardernst.com/2018/04/osteopathy-in-surgical-care-surprise-surprise-no-good-evidence/
https://edzardernst.com/2018/02/visceral-osteopathy-is-implausible-and-does-not-work-so-lets-forget-about-it-once-and-for-all/
https://edzardernst.com/2017/08/osteopathy-making-a-mockery-of-academia-and-evidence-based-healthcare/
https://edzardernst.com/2016/04/osteopathy-revisited/
https://edzardernst.com/2016/03/nice-no-longer-recommends-acupuncture-chiropractic-or-osteopathy-for-low-back-pain/
https://edzardernst.com/2013/06/osteopathy-is-based-on-excellent-evidence-no-not-really-i-was-just-joking/
https://edzardernst.com/2013/06/osteopathy-based-on-little-more-than-wishful-thinking/
https://edzardernst.com/2019/09/osteopathic-hubris/
OK- I’ll point out the the ‘elephant’ here …..
–All the above cites are nothing but links to an op/ed blog site(EE’s) ….. not respected/peer reviewed/pubmed listed journal articles
— All authored by a singular blogger ….> EE = “because I say so”
wrong!
all the links go to posts where recent original research was analysed
Osteopathic treatment covers alot…
“Osteopathic medicine provides all of the benefits of modern medicine including prescription drugs, surgery, and the use of technology to diagnose disease and evaluate injury. ” AACOM.
So to call osteopathy a “SCAM” well that covers alot of territory.
surgery also covers a lot (counselling, history taking, prescription of drugs, rehabilitation, etc., etc.) – and yet, we seem to judge them by the operations they do.
Too bad that’s how you judge them.
Please note DC, that the term “osteopathic medicine” means totally different things in USA vs. the rest of the world. In USA DO’s learn proper medicine along with a little manual work just to honour their name. Most of them never do any “osteopathic treatment”, but practice proper medicine. In the rest of the world they learn no medicine and are not alloweed to play doctor.
I see your article as the assertion that a legally defined and well regulated profession in the UK, which has robust pathways for public protection, is nothing but a sham.
I have provided you with the information showing how the profession in the UK is governed, which also gives you a legal pathway to stop any of your supposed advertising of treatments that do more good than harm.
The ASA have quite clearly provided you with a list of conditions that have enough research behind them to stand up in court as doing more good than harm.
in this case, there is no need for real evidence, is there?
Sorry if my previous reply was not quick enough, but I don’t sit at my computer all day, even in these strange times.
So you quote your own articles as evidence?
It is quite clear you equate spinal manipulation to being Osteopathy, which is incorrect, and that anyone who uses it regardless of their skill and knowledge base must be a con artist. It is a tool that some use, some don’t. The profession is evolving, as yours has and still does. Some surgeons still manipulate necks under anaesthetic, so does that make all surgeons quacks? Please do not put us in with Chiropractors, we left behind the whole somato-visceral crap a few years ago.
How do you define Osteopathy?
I do not quote my own articles; i quote posts where I discuss recent other people’s papers.
LEARN TO READ – OR BETTER STILL, LEAN TO UNDERSTAND!
REALLY? From above …..> They ALL look like YOUR articles/blog/op/eds
https://edzardernst.com/2019/03/new-review-confirms-osteopathy-is-not-evidence-based/
https://edzardernst.com/2018/11/osteopathy-not-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/
https://edzardernst.com/2018/04/osteopathy-in-surgical-care-surprise-surprise-no-good-evidence/
https://edzardernst.com/2018/02/visceral-osteopathy-is-implausible-and-does-not-work-so-lets-forget-about-it-once-and-for-all/
https://edzardernst.com/2017/08/osteopathy-making-a-mockery-of-academia-and-evidence-based-healthcare/
https://edzardernst.com/2016/04/osteopathy-revisited/
https://edzardernst.com/2016/03/nice-no-longer-recommends-acupuncture-chiropractic-or-osteopathy-for-low-back-pain/
https://edzardernst.com/2013/06/osteopathy-is-based-on-excellent-evidence-no-not-really-i-was-just-joking/
https://edzardernst.com/2013/06/osteopathy-based-on-little-more-than-wishful-thinking/
https://edzardernst.com/2019/09/osteopathic-hubris/
they are my posts in which I critically assess newly published papers on osteopathy
REALLY!
please provide me with evidence that osteopathic therapy is effective for the following conditions:
• Generalised aches and pains.
• Joint pains including hip and knee pain from osteoarthritis.
• Arthritic pain.
• General, acute & chronic backache, back pain.
• Uncomplicated mechanical neck pain.
• Headache arising from the neck (cervicogenic – also known as ‘tension headache).
• Frozen shoulder/ shoulder and elbow pain/ tennis elbow (lateral epicondylitis).
• Circulatory problems.
• Cramp.
• Digestion problems.
• Joint pains, lumbago.
• Sciatica.
• Muscle spasms.
• Neuralgia.
• Fibromyalgia.
• Inability to relax.
• Rheumatic pain.
• Minor sports injuries and tensions
You could start with this…
National council for osteopathic research
Evidence to support osteopathic treatment of low back pain – a summary table of osteopathic and
osteopathic-relevant evidence
(May, 2016)
oh yes, and if you want to know how good or bad Catholicism is, you probably ask the pope!
You requested evidence, not a critically objective evaluation of the evidence….isn’t that your “job”?
I did ask for evidence, but none was forthcoming
It’s called copy and paste.
no, it’s called critical assessment
All one has to do is copy and paste this into a search engine…a pdf file will appear. It fulfills your request for evidence.
Evidence to support osteopathic treatment of low back pain – a summary table of osteopathic and
osteopathic-relevant evidence
I am not sure I follow you.
I am waiting to be shown the evidence
So, you want me to go trawl through paywalled peer reviewed journals, evaluate the evidence and appraise each paper for its validity, then present them to you to nitpick? While I have to take your opinion from your website as evidence?
And yet, you won’t take the assessment from a government funded legal body who has a team of people doing just that, in the public interest that you claim to be defending? But you will publicly point a finger at practitioners you claim to be advertising false treatment (some quite rightly I might add), although you won’t put a complaint forward to the legal bodies that would put a stop to it?
I won’t engage in a discussion with someone who has such a bias to weight of evidence. Also, personal attacks normally signal an end to rational argument.
no, you cannot engage in a discussion with someone who uses the nasty trick of asking you for evidence