In the previous 3 parts of this series (see here, here and here), we have discussed 9 fake diagnoses of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM):
- adrenal fatigue,
- candidiasis hypersensitivity,
- chronic intoxications,
- chronic Lyme disease,
- electromagnetic hypersensitivity,
- homosexuality,
- leaky gut syndrome,
- multiple chemical sensitivity,
- neurasthenia.
Today I will briefly discuss three further fake diagnoses and list the treatments that SCAM practitioners might recommend for them.
Vaccine overload
Vaccine overload is a term for the notion that giving many vaccines at once may overwhelm or weaken a patient’s immune system which, in turn, is alleged to lead to adverse effects. Because children have an immature immune system, they are claimed to be afflicted most frequently.
There is no evidence that vaccine overload exists nor that it can lead to illness. This does not stop SCAM practitioners to apply or recommend all sorts of SCAMs for the imagined condition. Particular favourites are all sorts of detox diets, homeopathy and a wide range of dietary supplements. Such diets and supplements can be tricky for younger children. In this case, SCAM practitioners recommend, amongst many other things, smoothies or adding turmeric, ginger, and small amounts of Shillington’s adult supplements to the child’s food.
None of these recommendations are supported by anything resembling sound evidence, of course.
Vertebral subluxation
On this blog, we have discussed vertebral subluxations more often than I care to remember. Chiropractors claim that these figments of their imagination impair the flow of innate which, in turn, makes us ill. Straight chiros, those who adhere to the gospel of their guru DD Palmer, diagnose subluxations in 100% of their patients. They are undeterred by the fact that vertebral subluxations do not exist.
I can understand why! If they did aknowledge that the diagnosis is fake, they would have no reason to treat patients with spinal manipulations, and they would quickly go out of business.
Yin/Yang imbalance
According to the assumptions of practitioners of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), all health problems arise from an imbalaance of the two life forces , yin and yang. To restore the balance, they employ a range of therapies such as acupuncture, herbal mixtures, massages, etc.
But these life forces do not exist. Thus they cannot be out of balance, and consequently the imbalance cannot cause illness. TCM practitioners don’t want to hear any of this. Why not? You guessed it: if they aknowledged these facts, they would need to stop practising.
____________________
Fake diagnoses are the life-line of many SCAM practitioners:
- they tell you that something is wrong with you (despite the fact that you are entirely healthy);
- they make sure that this is a reason for serious concern;
- they claim they can put the alleged abnormality right again;
- they administer a lengthy series of treatments and/or sell you plenty of remedies;
- when they have earned enough money treating you, they give you the good news: you are back to narmal;
- gullible consumers are impressed by the unfailing competence of the SCAM practitioners.
My conclusion:
there is nothing easier and more profitably to heal that a condition that did not exist in the first place.
21 Responses to The fake diagnoses of so-called alternative medicine – PART 4
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Edzard Ernst wrote:
“My conclusion:
there is nothing easier and more profitably to heal that a condition that did not exist in the first place.”
This sounds correct. But it isn’t
If the patients really are okay, and they do feel well, and there is no disease, then Edzard Ernst is right.
But when there IS something wrong, when the patients do feel ill, when there IS a disease or something plaguing the patients, then we have the devilish situation, that the patient does suffer, but the SCAM healer performs a theater, which does not help, but rips off the patient. A situation absolutely common for, e.g., homeopaths.
In the case of the homeopaths the situation is simple and the diagnosis is perfect: “Detuning the life force” (“Verstimmung der Lebenskraft”).
Homeopathy is about the most known fake treatment for a fake diagnosis.
Since such fake diagnoses plus fake treatments do not better the situation of the patient, the fraud can continue for the rest of the lifetime of the patient until his end – or of the money, whatever comes first.
I’m surprised that after so many years of debunking Chinese medicine, you haven’t grasped any of the basic concepts. Yin and Yang are phenomenological concepts, and cannot be measured with scientific instruments. These concepts are based on the observation of nature and the way it works, and they have developed into a set of principles that guide treatment strategy. They are no more or less ‘real’ than love or consciousness. I understand that they don’t sit happily in a scientific framework, but they are extremely valuable nonetheless.
“Yin and Yang are phenomenological concepts, and cannot be measured with scientific instruments.”
DID I CLAIM OTHERWISE?
I think you are surprising.
That is consistent with Tom’s statement: Yin and Yang are phenomenological concepts, and cannot be measured with scientific instruments.
The predictions made by phenomenological concepts can, of course, be tested scientifically.
Furthermore, the explanatory power and the explanatory depth of phenomenological concepts can be examined.
Rozenblit L, Keil F.
The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth.
Cognitive Science. 2002 Sep 1;26(5):521-562.
doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1
PMCID: PMC3062901.
See also:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology
I honestly think that if the concepts of Yin and Yang were embraced by Western medicine, they could be used to great effect, for example in predicting which medicines individuals are likely to respond well/badly to. This is central to Chinese herbal medicine – each formula is designed to match the individual in their current state. The language (yin/yang, damp, cold, heat etc.) need not be the same, but a similar system which acknowledges the signs and symptoms of a patient’s internal environment, as well as just the disease label, could be revolutionary.
your idea is testable!
has it been tested?
if not, why not?
Lack of funding?
Applications for research funding are open even to acupuncturists!
I am surprised that you know that the incorporation of TCM into ICD-11 and the World Health System has an impact in health systems in every country and every person.
Including TCM in the ICD-11 is not only a landmark for the ICD but also a milestone for TCM: it enables the statistical data to cover information beyond Western medicine, thus reflecting the true situation of healthcare systems among member states of the WHO. This initiative is in line with the WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy (2014–2023), demonstrating that the WHO appreciates the past contribution of TCM to healthcare worldwide, and that it is responding to the current needs of its member states. Further, this action will have long-term impacts on TCM. It is a critical step not only because TCM may take this chance to be developed further among WHO member states, but also because TCM should benefit from improved service levels, education, research, and regulation. In addition, this initiative contributes to the progressive reform of the world healthcare system, from global extension of TCM to the integration of TCM with multiple Western medicine-based disciplines. People all over the world will benefit.
You call it fake-diagnosis.
WHO is already integrating the TCM symtomology into their new statistical system:
Chapter 26 of ICD-11 refers to disorders and patterns as defined in TCM conceptual terms. It specifies recording epidemiological data about TCM practice from four aspects: (1) symptomology; (2) TCM etiology; (3) course and outcome; and (4) treatment response. This coding system will be a standard reference that all practitioners can use to help diagnose diseases and assess their possible causes during their practice. The implementation of this coding system (although optional) will affect, to some extent, how practitioners make diagnoses, how insurance companies determine coverage, and how government officers interpret healthcare statistical data. This will influence the service level, research, education, and regulation of TCM.
It‘s the integration of a new coding system which is already relevante for insurances.
It‘s look like that China was very successful in lobbying for their interests at WHO.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40290-019-00295-y
If you say Fake Diagnosis you speak up against the new approaches of WHO.
Tom wrote: “but a similar system which acknowledges the signs and symptoms of a patient’s internal environment, as well as just the disease label, could be revolutionary”.
Such as a system that includes:
• cardiology
• clinical neurophysiology
• endocrinology
• gastroenterology
• gynaecology
• haematology
• immunology
• medical genetics
• nephrology
• neurology
• neuropathology
• oncology
• ophthalmology
• otorhinolaryngology (aka ENT)
• psychiatry
• pulmonology
• radiology
• rheumatology
• toxicology
• transfusiology
Western medicine is incredible, I’m a big fan in many ways! But none of these specialist areas takes account of the big picture of the patient in the way Chinese medicine can. Drugs are very often prescribed based on the major presenting symptom or condition alone, without taking into account the individual. Many patients feel this way too, at least in my experience.
your description of ‘Western medicine’ – an entity that actually does not even exist but is called evidence-based medicine – suggests that you do not understand it.
Tom wrote: “But none of these specialist areas takes account of the big picture of the patient…”.
I find it difficult to believe that someone who lives and works in England can be so astonishingly ignorant of current evidence-based medicine.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
— Upton Beall Sinclair Jr.
‘Applications for research funding are open even to acupuncturists!’
Maybe one day 🙂
no, today – for instance, the MRC has no restrictions as to the profession of the applicant.
‘your description of ‘Western medicine’ – an entity that actually does not even exist but is called evidence-based medicine – suggests that you do not understand it.’
I think everyone knows what is meant by Western Medicine.
‘no, today – for instance, the MRC has no restrictions as to the profession of the applicant.’
I meant that maybe one day I will find the time to get the right people together and apply for funding. But it would of course also need the cooperation of people who could prescribe the medications.
Tom wrote: “I think everyone knows what is meant by Western Medicine”.
I don’t use the term Western medicine in a ‘snarly’ way. I’m not sure I agree with that post that’s it’s mainly used in that way. I would agree more with this definition:
‘A system in which medical doctors and other health care professionals (such as nurses, pharmacists, and therapists) treat symptoms and diseases using drugs, radiation, or surgery. Also called allopathic medicine, biomedicine, conventional medicine, mainstream medicine, and orthodox medicine.’
https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/western-medicine#
Tom wrote: “I don’t use the term Western medicine in a ‘snarly’ way”.
Nobody said that YOU use the term in a snarly way.
I am wondering that you are not up to date into the science which is relevant around WHO. What you call pseudo-diagnosis is official thinking at WHO. So i am really suprised that you don’t know what_s going on.
1. Scientists are using the terms Western medicine vs.TCM. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40290-019-00295-y
2. The are describing huge impact of the incorporation of TCH sypmtomatics, etiology for the international statistical system which is relevant for every country.
3. I can recomment to read espessially the chapter 26. WHO is following a long-term-strategy by the integration of TCM-thinking into ICD-11 since 2013.
My guess is, China was very successful at influencing WHO. The premodern system (Tao De King, The Yellow Emperor) is already implemented in global governance thinking.
Timothy Snyder (Yale, IWM Vienna) is already talking about, that we jumped globally from post-modern to pre-modern world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nr2Q2zGNC8
Climate Change means not only meterological climate, but also societal climate. That’s biosociological thinking. It’s here again. Very similiar to the times 100 years ago.
Before we returned to premodern times, there was mixing up Buddha and Marx for political thinking. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.18772/22018020541.12
The planet has to come healthy. This is very important for United Nations.
The Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on Planetary Health recognizes that human health and the health of our planet are inextricably linked, and that our civilization depends on human health, flourishing natural systems, and the wise stewardship of natural resources. With natural systems being degraded to an extent unprecedented in human history, both our health and that of our planet are in peril.
With this in mind, The Rockefeller Foundation and UNFCCC secretariat launched a new, three-year project that will shine a light on solutions to balance the need for both human health and a healthy planet starting in 2017.
https://unfccc.int/climate-action/un-global-climate-action-awards/planetary-health
I think you should talk with Wellcome Trust and WHO. Since 1999 there is an agenda on globalization of TCM, with the great ideo of “The 21st century of TCM”.
TCM is also used by the Chinese state to promote China’s culture. The definition of TCM as a national treasure removes its definition as a science even further from the field of debate. However, efforts to heighten the positive perception of TCM abroad also force internal changes—for example, efforts to prohibit the use of endangered species in preparation of TCM drags, and to use research acceptable to an international audience in the assessment of TCM.
Public support for Chinese medicine in China remains impressive. Exercises such as qigong and taijiquan are practised daily by millions of Chinese people. Self-prescribing with ready-made Chinese medicines is an important part of lay-people’s therapeutic regimens. And although most Chinese believe in the superior diagnostic powers of biomedicine, many prefer TCM treatment particularly for chronic diseases where the side-effects of biomedicine may be judged to outweigh its benefits.
TCM is now practised in one form or another by more than 300 000 practitioners in over 140 countries. The first hospital for Chinese medicine in Europe, was opened in Germany in 1990. British GPs are increasingly contracting out for acupuncture services, public health-insurance companies in Germany routinely refund part of the costs of acupuncture treatment provided by trained doctors, and in France, acupuncture is a widely accepted part of health-care provision. Degree programmes in Chinese medicine are now offered at several British universities, and courses in TCM are established at European medical schools. Tong Ren Tang, Beijing’s oldest pharmacy founded in the 17th century, opened a branch in central London in 1995.
Given the worldwide hegemony of biomedicine throughout most of this century, the global emergence of TCM is a monumental event. Indeed, proponents already speak of the 21st century as the “century of TCM”. More likely is a continued integration of TCM into existing health-care systems worldwide.
I am just describing what is to find.
Complexity Science took up the approach of TCM and integrated into the new medicine, this new holoistic medicine and healht policy.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291819150_Traditional_Chinese_medicine_potential_approaches_from_modern_dynamical_complexity_theories
OECD is very satisfied with this combination of TCM symptomatics and complexity science. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/1fb40a6b-en.pdf?expires=1723834082&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=F0183009984CCCC78E1C87AED112A1FE
Are your terms not right or is using WHO and OECD using fake diagnosis, pseudo-science?