Update: Jan 9th 2009 “Unprecedented” rise in Measles cases in England and Wales due to poor uptake of MMR: “
“We shouldn’t forget that the children who weren’t vaccinated many years ago are at real risk.”
” ‘Big pharma is evil’, goes the line of reasoning, ‘therefore homeopathy works and the MMR vaccine causes autism’. This is probably not helpful”.
So says Guardian columnist and evidence-based medical blogger Ben Goldacre in his highly recommended and also hilarious book Bad Science.
Some of the comments in response to my review of Greer’s The Long Descent before Christmas lead me to think I should follow up with more explanation on acupuncture and alternative therapies, and I can do no better than give a brief review of Goldacre’s superb explanation of the scientific method in this book.
He begins with a chapter on homeopathy, not as he says because it is particularly important but because it provides such a good example of how to test therapies and see if they work:
Homeopathy is perhaps the paradigmatic example of an alternative therapy: it claims the authority of a rich historical heritage, but its history is routinely rewritten for the PR needs of a contemporary market; it has an elaborate and sciencey-sounding framework for how it works, without scientific evidence to demonstrate its veracity; and its proponents are quite clear that the pills will make you better, when in fact they have been thoroughly researched, with innumerable trials, and have been found to perform no better than placebo. Homeopathic remedies- in liquid drops or pill form- in fact contain nothing at all- perhaps explaining why they are often promoted for their qualities of “being natural alternatives to mainstream medicine without the side-effects”.
When you take homeopathy you are in fact taking a sugar pill or just plain water- the effect is purely placebo, as more than 200 clinical trials have shown.
Goldacre’s explanation of just how these clinical trials are conducted, how they are “blinded” and how use of a control groups is essential reading for understanding how and why people still believe that homeopathy works: they dont trust the science, which they associate with the evils of Big Pharma.
However, Goldacre shows that “its a little bit more complicated than that”… the problem is, few of us have the training to separate “good” science from the bad. There may be a world of difference between different quality of trials and studies:
on the one hand, there is the high-grade trial with randomised samples of statistially relevant numbers, properly blinded, with controls, that is testing the relevant variables and excluding others; that is published in peer-reviewed journals; that is transparent in its methodologies and in the presentation of its results; that offers itself to the scrutiny of other researchers, and to the public, inviting flaws to be uncovered and the next study improved upon.
Yes, such studies do exist. Not all researchers are unscrupulous hoaxers with no concern over anything other than huge payouts from Big Pharma for bogus studies designed only to discredit “natural” and “alternative” therapies in order to seize market share, as Greer has claimed.
(For those fond of conspiracy theories, you might consider why no evidence is found for something that is believed to work- either a) it doesnt work or b) a conspiracy- but what is the conspiracy? Big Pharma would take homeopathy of any other pill-type alternative and make a billion out of it like that- if it worked. The reason that modern medicine may be failing is because of a public expectation of constant new developments and new products- and the growth economy, of course. The truth is more interesting- most big developments in medical research were made long ago in the realm of vaccines, germ theory etc- thus medical innovations may have peaked.)
On the other hand, however, we do have very poorly conducted studies with unrepresentative samples, riddled with such phenomena as comfirmation bias, which are reported as “proving” something when in fact they prove nothing at all.
The trick, then, is how to tell the difference, and the only way we can really do this is by reading each study closely to see how good it was- exactly how to do this is what Goldacre’s book is all about.
But wait a minute- if Homeopathy is just water, why do so many people still believe in it? Why are so many happy customers going back for more? Why do more and more doctors prescribe homeopathy, why are there still universities offering degrees in it, and why is it such a successful and lucrative industry?
I think that this past point should be emphasised before moving on- homeopathy is Big Business, the European market worth more than 2.5 billion euros, with the big companies promoting it feeling increasingly corporate in their stance. Part of its success lies in the low-cost inputs. A single French Duck sacrificed each year for the manufacture of a homeopathic flu remedy for the company Boiron, and then diluted to such a degree that not a single molecule will remain in the remedies, generates $20 million a year in sales, making it arguably the most valuable animal on the planet! (See Rose Shapiro, Suckers- How Alternative Medicine Makes Fools of Us All Harvill Secker 2008)
Now, this may be relatively small potatoes compared with the billions of profit made by Pfizer and the like, but the wider point Goldacre brings home is that there is really a merging of mainstream and alternatives, at least in the way they are marketed. It doesnt really hold water to argue on the one hand, mainstream medicine is bad, and then happily pay good money for a sugar pill marketed as “alternative” and sold in the same pharmacy. Dohhhhhhh! (It’s all in the marketing, you see- there are parallels with another alternative holy cow, organic food- see Michale Pollan’s the Omnivore’s Dilemma).
Back to why people still think this stuff works: well, the placebo effect is a fascinating topic in itself, and is explored in the following chapter. If you know nothing of science at all, you might be forgiven for thinking this must be a deeply mysterious subject that maybe proves “mind over matter” or “quantum healing” or something. But in fact, like everything else, it can be studied scientifically. Strange though the results may seem, Goldacre takes us through some of the best experimental data on the subject of the placebo effect, finding for example that two sugar pills may work better than one; that the colour of the pill may effect its efficacy, as will whether it is administered by a man in a white coat with letters after his name.
…the placebo effect is about far more than just a pill: it is about the cultural meaning of the treatment. Pills dont simply manifest themselves in your stomach: they are given in particular ways, they take varying forms, and they are swallowed with expectations, all of which have an impact on a person’s beliefs about their own health, and , in turn, on outcome. Homeopathy is a perfect example of the value in ceremony.
The same may be true for a range of other alternative therapies which people swear blind are curing them- acupuncture being a good example, but also anything from Reiki to Aromatherapy- nice people giving you lots of care and attention in comfortable “healing” environments can work wonders- why wouldnt you feel better afterwards? Far preferable to the perhaps abrupt and peremptory 2-minute consultation you might get in a cold doctors’ surgery- which is precisely why many doctors are indeed willing to refer patients to an alternative practitioner who, for a price, may in reality be more help than they doctor can be- especially if it is for a chronic condition or a condition for which there is no complete cure anyway.
Many kinds of back and knee- pain and similar conditions come under this category- there may indeed by lifestyle causes, or you might just need a nice rest. No reason why a massage wouldnt help you to feel better- but that is a little different from claiming some esoteric cause for presumed healing powers of a therapy. There is no substitute for well-conducted clinical trials to establish the true efficacy of a treatment.
There is also the issue of “regression to the mean”- people often seek help at the peak of distress, after which many illnesses tend to revert to a “mean” or average degree of severity. This is not always the case, but these kinds of conditions are typically the ones people claim have been cured by alternative therapies. Fact is, lots of things just get better by themselves or at least fluctuate and improve, and a bit of TLC can help this along nicely.
(Homeopathy often turns this on its head, claiming success even if your symptoms deteriorate first- a win-win situation!)
I have many friends who swear blind that homeopathy does wonders for their young child for teething troubles- how could this be placebo? Try a Smartee- its cheaper. Regression to the mean, rest and relaxation, the gentle healing properties of time… all these would be relevant to animals too.
Having dispensed with sugar pills and rituals, Goldacre raises the game with his examination of Nutritionism- singling out Patrick Holford for particular dissection. Nutritionism is largely pseudo-science, it seems, but again, it is Big Business- and so we have a burgeoning industry of supplements which make up for our food being just not good enough to feed us anymore.
Holford’s books are instructive for their weighty-tome feel, their sciencey jargon and its pages of footnotes- a sample of which Goldacre takes us through to give an indication of how spurious they are.
For anyone still finding Goldacre’s discrediting of alternative remedies too bitter a pill to swallow, his chapter “Is Mainstream Medicine Evil?” should set your mind at rest. The conclusion is inescapable- what is needed is more high-grade evidence based medicine, not less: the whole problem with mainstream medicine is essentially the same as the problem with alternatives: the science is very poor and often used to mislead.
The only difference is, Big Pharma is much more sophisticated in its deceptions and obscurifications. Goldacre does a superb job in taking us through how this process actually works, and in so doing, gives us the tools we need for uncovering the truth about medical science.
It is not even the deceits of Big Pharma, howver, who are the main culprits in Goldacres’ Rogues Gallery of the Bad in Science: for this he turns to the media and how it promotes the public misunderstanding of science.
With many examples to choose from he shows how science in general is portrayed as quirky and boffiny, with whacky scientists finding the formulae for the “perfect wiggle” and other such nonsense- and dont think this is confined to the tabloids either.
The following chapter is entitled “Why do Clever people Believe Stupid Things?” Goldacre gives many examples of how our intuitions and perceptions can mislead us- and yes, this also is based on high-quality peer-reviewed studies. Here is where we will find a wealth of potential research opportunities for understanding why, for example, people cant understand peak oil or Climate change, or respond appropriately.
The final chapters discuss health scares, in particular what he calls The Media’s MMR Hoax. This all seems to go back to a paper published in 1998 in the Lancet by one Andrew Wakefield from the Royal Free Hospital in London which Goldacre claims “now stands as one of the most misunderstood and misreported papers in the history of academia.” This whole extraordinary story has clearly played a big part in the public’s suspicion of mainstream medicine and the rising popularity of alternatives- and yet is based on bad, bad science, as Goldacre explains. In one study he refers to, over 50% of homeopathists surveyed warned against use of the vaccine- but now there are fears that measles cases may be on the increase as a result of many parents’ misguided avaersion to the vaccine through the early 00′s after the publication of Wakefiled’s flawed study.
Tragic indeed. This is one of the more serious results of general public ignorance of science and the media’s complicity in spreading misinformation- all aided and abetted by an alternative industry waiting in the wings to sieze its chance to “increase market share”.
As an aside, and I refer you back to Rob Hopkin’s comment on the Greer post, Goldacre makes a comparism with the work of 1999 study by Pustzai showing a link between GM potatoes and cancer in rats- according to Goldacre, equally flawed as Wakefild’s- but his main gripe is, “during the crucial two days after the GM ‘Frankenstein Foods’ story broke in Feb 1999, not a single one of the news stories ...on the subject were written by a science journalist.”
Damningly he goes onto say:
Witnessing the blind, seething, thoughtless campaigns against MMR and GM- which mirror the infantile train of thought that ‘homeopathy works because the Vioxx side-effects were covered up by Merck’- it’s easy to experience a pervasive sense of lost political opportunities, that somehow all of our valuable indignation about developmental issues, the role of big money in our society, and frank corporate malpractice, is being diverted away from anywhere it could be valid and useful, and into puerile, mythical fantasies.
But perhaps an even more disturbing and far-reaching effect of the prevalence of woo-woo, Bad Science and the Age of Endarkenment that we see in the world today is the background to the whole MMR scare story, which reached its crescendo in 2002. This background story was the coverage of Tony and Cherie Blair’s baby Leo and their refusal to state whether he had infact been vaccinated.
The stories coming out around this time about the Blairs covered Cherie Blair’s close friend and aid, the New Age guru Carole Caplin.
Goldacre tells us
It was also reported- doubtless as part of a cheap smear- that Cherie Blair and Carole Caplin encouraged the Prime Minister to have Sylvia [Caplin, Carole's mum] ‘douse and consult The Light, believed by Sylvia to be to be a higher being or God, by use of her pendulum’ to decide if it was safe to go to war in Iraq .
Did Blair ask a dowser to help advise on the invasion in Iraq?
Could it be true? Did Blair use a New Age dowser to help him decide about whether or not to invade Iraq? Seems incredible, but given the known propensity of the Blair’s for some of the more extreme and bizarre aspects of New Age religion, it has to be considered a possibility.
To sum up, the next time any of you feel like defending dowsers, New Agers of any kind, or alternative therapies like homeopathy or acupuncture, just consider the kind of company you are keeping, and the kind of mindset and thinking processes you are buying into and promoting.
And before you write into me claiming that you just know homeopathy or whatever therapy works because little Johnny was very sick and then as if by magic got better after taking the magic pill, please, please, read Ben’s book- it’s brill.
18 Comments
Sounds like an interesting book.
However (and this is a BIG “however”) many alternative therapies work – and work well. And many ‘big pharma’ drugs do cause a lot of nasty side effects.
You mention autism. The mainstream drug sodium valproate (marketed as epilim or depakote) is well-known to cause autism when taken by pregnant women – a class action is now underway in the UK on this issue, and the statistics on the drug are frightening.
Yet nowhere on the insert are there warnings about this, and women of childbearing age are still being prescribed this drug without being warned that their child is likely to be born autistic as a result. So much for responsibility.
As for alternative therapies, when it comes to autism, using dietary interventions is now succeeded in treating autistic kids, and bringing them closer to norm. Some are even considered ‘recovered’. Diet – an ‘alternative therapy’ and scoffed at by many mainstream medical practitioners – can be a powerful treatment, and is having more effect on autistic kids and their recovery than anything ‘big pharma’ can dish out.
However (another BIG “however”!) treating people for various illnesses – everything from autism to diabetes and heart disease – is not as profitable as prescribing pills. It also requires more care, support, intervention and responsibility. Pills are the easy and profitable way out.
So what we have here in our society is often a clash not necessarily between what works and what doesn’t, but between what is easy and profitable, and what is not easy and not so profitable, but may be many times more effective.
It pays to do your homework and not believe the media, who are more interested in a good story than the facts. I’ve lost track of the journals I’ve read and the myths I’ve uncovered.
From what I can see, homeopathy is certainly bogus. But to throw the baby out with the bathwater – which your article suggests (although the book you discuss may not) is unwise.
From my own study, as many mainstream drugs as alternative therapies are worthless (or next to worthless) – the main difference is that the mainstream drugs tend to be more than a little vicious with their side-effects, which should never be discounted.
Cheers,
Daharja – mother of an autistic son making huge progress with dietary intervention and yes, both my husband and I have scientific backgrounds
Daharja-
“However (and this is a BIG “however”) many alternative therapies work – and work well. And many ‘big pharma’ drugs do cause a lot of nasty side effects.”
Evidence? Which alternative therapies are you referring to? As I pointed out in the previous post, a review of Greer’s book, “alternative” means in effect a therapy for which there is insufficient evidence- ie no peer-reviewed good-quality clinical trials. If a therapy has been demonstrated to work better than placebo it is no longer “alternative” but merely “medicine”.
With respect to you, I find your comment frustrating because you seem to have missed the main points I have painstakingly tried to draw out from Goldacre’s book- namely, - most people have very poor understanding of what constitutes a valid scientific study; -this makes them vulnerable to manipulation by not only the media and Big Pharma, but “alternatives” which position themselves as somehow exempt from the need for scientific trials, and market their products with cynical appeals to people’s New Age beliefs and suspicion of science; there is no “Big However” as you imply- that is the whole point as is surely crystal clear from the quotations i have pulled out. I am certainly not throwing the baby out with the bathwater- I am simply asking for evidence. As I have made quite clear in the review, it does not take a genius to realise that (often) expensive “alternatives” with a quasi-mystical references have the advantage of being able to give personalised TLC- at a cost- which the Health service or your GP may not be able to deliver. Goldacre has a chapter called “Pill solves complex social problem” which adresses the other issues you raise- I do hope you read the book, and thanks for your comment.
Good job on the alternative therapies question. What is real in the alternatives field is using the source plants, perhaps in alimentary ways, in preference to the laboratory derivatives, which should be a last resort. See Andrew Weil. And midwifery, for the recognition that not all natural processes should be categorized as “disease.” See Ina May Gaskin. And, when it works, the unexplainable. See J.H. Kunstler’s The World Made By Hand. We might have dismissed magnet therapies as hooey not long ago, but for the efficacy, which has led researchers to lately uncover real benefits. Nothing ventured, nothing explored.
Hi – I agree absolutely with Albert’s comment that alternative therapies need more study and analysis.
On the issue of midwifery, it is also interesting to note that mainstream practices are often not evidence-based. Cord traction, induction by assumed post-dates, delivery in a supine position and automatic dispensation of pitocin are some obvious examples of mainstream obstetric practices that have been proven dangerous, unnecessary and to increase the likelihood of complications, yet are still routinely practiced.
In other words, just because something is mainstream does not mean there is any sort of science behind it at all – and many so-called ‘alternative’ practices are actually evidence-based traditional ways that have refused to die, simply because they work.
Labels of ‘mainstream’ and ‘alternative’ are often not useful. What all of us need in the field of medicine and health care is evidence, study, analysis, and education. All of these seem to be not as widespread as they should be in our health care culture.
Finally, the simplest way of all to care for our health – prevention – is still not taken seriously. Despite massive and irrefutable evidence that lifestyle choices make huge differences to our state of health and wellbeing, our medical system is geared to fixing damage once it occurs, rather than preventing illness in the first place. Rather like waiting until the horse has bolted, if you ask me!
Until people begin to understand that the responsibility for their own health lies in their own hands, with medical professionals as what they are – paid assistants, drug dispensers and workers – the vast majority of people will continue ill health. An unavoidable result from a foolish lack of responsibility.
Here is what Singh and Ernst say about magnet therapy in “Trick or Treatment” (2008): “Nowadays, rapidly fluctuating magnetic fields are employed in conventional medicine in hi-tech imaging instruments and for promoting the healing of bone fractures.However, alternative medicine tends to focus on the use of static magnets which give rise to a permanent magnetic field…. “Stable magnets are popular, and the market is booming, but it is important to realize that there is no evidence that they offer any medical benefit, and indeed there is no reason that they ought to.”
Dr. Andrew Weil appears to be very much in the mold of other quack nutritionists like Patrick Holford- selling a lot of nutrient supplements, yes; evidence-based, certainly not.
http://www.quackwatch.com/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=andrew+weil
There is absolutely no difference between say, synthetic aspirin and aspirin derived from willows. None. There is not a soul on earth who can tell the difference by any means known. They both work just as well- the refined product being naturally more potent and avoiding any other compounds in the plant source that may not be so desirable.
As for Kunstler’s supernatural scenes in “World Made by Hand” they have a place in a such a novel I guess but otherwise the idea there is some kind of profundity there I find frankly bizarre. There is no shortage of “the unexplained” but simply resorting to superstition doesnt help. If you really want to feast on some weird stuff, try science. In particular, I recommend Marcus Chown “Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You” and “The Never Ending Days of being Dead”.
Daharja- what is extraordinary is just how much high-quality studies are in fact done on alternative therapies- please refer to the links and books I have referred to. Homeopathy for example has had over 200 peer-reviewed studies conducted which have then been assessed with a meta- analysis under the Cochrane collaboration: http://www.cochrane.org/ However, the significant point is that few alternative therapies are themselves interested in research, despite having billions of which to invest in what surely would be their own interests to do. Goldacre estimates that about 60% of mainstream medical interventions are in fact evidence-based- lamentably poor, but far better than the alternative rate of close to zero.
You say: “…many so-called ‘alternative’ practices are actually evidence-based traditional ways that have refused to die, simply because they work.”
-which practices are you referring to? How do you know they work? What is the standard of evidence you are using? Where is your evidence? To repeat once again: “medicine” is simply something that has been properly shown to work. “Alternatives” are by definition treatments which have no sufficient evidence for them- and this is emphatically NOT because the funding is not there to do the research.
Hi Graham, I always enjoy reading your blog. From my own experience with all the ‘alternative’ therapies I’ve tried, I would say: I don’t think any of them helped ‘cure’ me particularly – (but I never had anything particularly wrong with me in the first place). But I would say, that I did need the search for health and balance which that process entailed, and also the positive, loving attention received from often quite charismatic people. As you say: ceremony. Don’t we have a lack of that in our lives?
This process and these people empower and encourage me to look after my own health better. I totally agree with Daharja that prevention – taking responsibility for one’s own health – is not really encouraged enough by mainstream culture. I have also found that practitioners of ‘alternative’ therapies encourage me in sticking to a value system that is completely different from the mainstream. Any healthcare practitioner is in a position of power and influence. It is good to have at least some of these have a holistic, caring and reverent outlook on the universe, just as a counter weight to what has become the norm.
So these therapies do fulfill a real need, but intention is nearly everything, especially on the part of the healers. There certainly is plenty of negative stuff happening in the ‘alternative’ health care field. And the fact that these therapies are costly makes them too much of a luxury. I wish all health care providers could be humble as to their claims, and more affordable. This would allow individuals to make their own journey to health — even if there are a few twists and turns along the road. Anna
Hi Graham and all – Alternative treatments and philosophies span from the concept of medical professionals washing their hands before surgery (yes, this was once considered radical and ‘alternative’!) through to modern midwifery and homebirth, where the outcomes are still significantly superior to hospital birth overall.
Birth positions other than supine are still considered ‘alternative’ by many obstetricians as well, although the evidence is hugely in favour of birthing positions aligned with gravity i.e. squatting, standing, kneeling and so on.
To the reverse of this, many unproven and outdated (and sometimes dangerous) methods and habits are still in practice in mainstream, so-called ‘proven’ medicine. Research cord traction as a particularly nasty example of this – despite the science proving solidly that this intervention is dangeous and is more likely to cause haemmorhage, it is still performed routinely in a majority of hospitals around the world and is only now finally starting to be phased out.
Treatment for auto-immune diseases with diet rather than steroids is still considered ‘alternative’ by the medical fraternity, yet there is massive support and scientific study recognising the effectiveness of this ‘alternative’ tool – in particular various oils (including fish), diets low in arachidonic acid, and diets that are primarily centered around plant foods rather than animal foods. All still considered ‘alternative’, yet the science is in and these treatments are proving themselves to be effective. Have a look on PubMed if you’re interested in this really fascinating and active field of study and research.
A significant amount of medical treatments that are effective start off as ‘alternative’ because they may seem unusual, but we are only just beginning to understand the holistic nature of the body, and the impact that strong medications can have long term – which may be more detrimental than the original reason for taking medications in the first place. Alternative treatments for epilepsy, including medications based on cannibis, are currently under trial in Europe – definitely ‘alternative’ – yet the results are incredibly promising.
Absolutely there is a huge amount of bunk in the ‘alternative therapies’ field, and in this I could not agree with you more. Homeopathy is a particularly good example of this, and so-called skeptics point to it again and again.
But a truly scientific mind is foolish to fail to study and question each therapy in isolation. Just because homeopathy is a load of old cobblers doesn’t mean that surgeons washing their hands after visiting the morgue and progressing to the surgery is!
Good science is about having an open and intelligent mind, doing the research thoroughly according to proper method, not being afraid to change one’s mind as new data becomes available – and not falling prey to the mindset of automatic criticism of therapies we do not understand or know much about without being willing to properly research them, simply because we like the thought of calling ourselves “skeptics”.
Cheers,
Daharja.
As ever your blog is a great resource Graham, thankyou. I’ve finally found the time to post a comment!
Well I’m inclined to agree with Graham with his ‘alternate is unproven – proven becomes mainstream’ synopsis. I’ve been a Pharmacist for the last 15 years and I have to say that some comments on here [and elsewhere] really do the healthcare community a great disservice. Whilst I in no why want to defend ‘Big Pharma’ who I am highly suspicious of, I do want to highlight the fact that much medical intervention nowadays is approached from the minimizing of drug therapy, maximizing of lifestyle change, perspectives. There is a significant problem in that many people can’t or won’t change their lifestyles and demand drug therapy – it will take a long time to change people’s perspectives [and yes, the medical profession are to blame for that dependence in the first place].
I have witnessed first hand the skeptical, scientific approach of Drs and Pharmacists when assessing drug therapy, whose bottom-line reasoning is risk/benefit analysis [and yes, cost]. There is a ready acceptance that the drug companies don’t tell them everything and a lot of effort is put into to the reading of the available literature. However, here there is a major problem in that drug companies do not have to publish all data [as was the case with Vioxx], and it’s this that allows them to ‘hide’ less than ideal results – this is the job of government legislation – there’s no sign of that yet, strange eh?!
As for ‘alternate’ therapies – Graham is absolutely right in that anything that can be proven does become incorporated into mainstream medicine. However, it is important to understand that the nature of double-blind trials is not equally suited to all therapies and not all experiments are equally well designed so there is room for doubt along the way as we receive conflicting results. It’s also important to remember that to fully grasp the results of a paper it’s not always sufficient to have a ‘grasp’ of science but to fully understand the nature of the underlying problem – and we are not all experts in everything.
The difficulty that science has with ‘alternate’ therapies is partly due to a weakness within science itself – in that it can measure small things well [just read the odd PhD abstract for the average level of detail], but there can be great difficulty in areas of overlap and as most areas [particularly with drugs etc] are funded by business, we don’t always have all the data.
I think that is is this perceived weakness that ‘New Agers’ latch on to. They see a conflicting report [for example - just how much wine a day is healthy? The goal posts are constantly changing] and harp on about science not being able to see the whole picture, themselves failing to understand that science IS looking at the bigger picture , by looking at a LOT of little pictures and that this takes time – a lot of time.
I think homeopathy is a lost cause, but it is a cause a lot of people desperately want to believe in because they see it as a link to a more ‘natural’ world. I find this delusion, both frustrating and bizarre, but I can’t blame them for it as the NHS still funds homeopathic hospitals and therapies [in the absence of any reasonable data]. The idea that it’s natural is just so much marketing hype and I’m always given to smile when asked, ‘does this interact with anything?’ Well of course not – there’s nothing in it!
I think that there are likely to be discoveries along the way that puts much of this into a different perspective. I think that there are potentially huge issues with the scientific approach to ‘micro’ health and the drug companies’ background funding – so we should all be skeptical EITHER WAY and not put science on a pedestal it doesn’t deserve and certainly don’t hang on to superstitions-as-cure belief systems [which is essentially what some alternate treatments are]. I also think it’ll be interesting to see how drug therapies change in light of powerdown, and how society responds, not everyone will cope, or, dare I say it, survive.
Hi again, Graham, Daharja and Matt, I posted an entry on my blog today in which I linked this discussion with some other thoughts and other writers. It’s a long post, and I quoted all of you in summing up some parts of this debate – hope you don’t mind. Check it out if you like: http://ipna-landblog.blogspot.com/. I am arguing that, while rigorous scientific method is important, it is also important to balance this with being open to the unexplainable. My other point is that there are different types of knowledge, and in a heated discussion, where people feel the need to be right, intuitively felt knowledge can be hard to put into the right words, and hard facts win the day, even if they may not contain the whole (as in holistic) truth.
Anna.
Hi Anna I tried to leave a comment on your blog but couldnt work out how to sign in so Ill post it here:
Hi Anna Thanks for your post, some nice comments. I think you miss the point about placebos: the way you test something like homeopathy in a clinical trial is by “double-blinding”- the trial group is randomly split into two, one group gets the remedy, the other a placebo, but neither group, nor the homeopath or doctor knows who gets what until after the results come in. This has been done literally hundreds of times and the overall results show that both groups get well on average as much as each other- this clearly shows homeopathy is no better than placebo. It might be worth spelling out what this means: if you replace the remedy with a sugar pill or just water it will work just as well- there is nothing special about “homeopathy”! It would be easy to do the same with chickens- the point is, properly conducted trials do give us some useful data and interesting results; anecdotes really tell us nothing. This may be of benefit to the individual patient in a given time, but as you correctly point out, there is ritual and placebo benefit in proper medicine as well. But we have to balance this against the necessary deception- these are important ethical issues that doctors are well aware of, and Ben discusses usefully on his blog. What is at stake here really is a culture that is not easily deceived, that can think for itself, that cannot be manipulated easily. As for crop circles- give me a break! To say they are unexplainable is simply a failure of the imagination- no one has ever given any reputable evidence that they are not made by people. Rob’s comments on my original woo woo blog show how naive he is: http://zone5.org/2007/10/28/no-place-for-woo-woo-in-permaculture/ -a similar and more worrying naivety is expressed on the MMR debate above. The real point is this: people who explain things with their beliefs, based on faith, self-delusion, wishful thinking or a desire to deceive, tend to be dogmatic and uninterested in evidence; good science is the opposite to dogma, and will always be open, cautiously, to new evidence. And I take exception to your defence of Alanna Moore’s position: she threatened me with legal action for pointing out she has no evidence for her claims, while finally agreeing with me by stating that “no one gives a rat’s arse about scientific credibility anyway”! What is required in these issues is not just evidence and rigorous methodology but intellectual honesty, something frequently missing from the New Age side of the debate. For those interested in a genuine scientific approach to consciousness studies I recommend Dr. Susan Blackmore: http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/
I’m chastened to realise that I have forgotten how to put in the HTML to quote others, so I’ll just have to do it crudely!
I’m not going to repeat Graham here as I think he’s more than capable of defending his position on science – but I will pick up on a few points.
Anna said:
“I am arguing that, while rigorous scientific method is important, it is also important to balance this with being open to the unexplainable”
This is of course true, but I think there is a danger here in the implied meaning: that ‘science is important’ but it cannot explain everything in the universe and we have to allow for knowledge outside of scientific understanding. It’s important to realise that this is fundamentally a point of belief. Pretty much all the scientists I know and have read, believe that there’s no such thing as ‘unexplainable’ – but rather unexplainable ‘at the moment, with current knowledge’. The idea being, that as the little pieces of the puzzle are discovered, less and less phenomena are unexplainable. New Agers are likely to criticise this view as coldly rational as they themselves believe that not everything is explainable by the rational deductions and experiments of science, and that there is some inexplicable force/knowledge/power etc
So there is a difference between being open to the unexplainable in the scientific way – patiently waiting for more data; and in the New Ager’s way – believing in the intrinsically inexplicable nature [to human understanding] of the universe.
Anna also said:
“My other point is that there are different types of knowledge, and in a heated discussion, where people feel the need to be right, intuitively felt knowledge can be hard to put into the right words, and hard facts win the day, even if they may not contain the whole (as in holistic) truth”
Your blog entry talks about ‘fast’ knowledge and ‘slow’ knowledge – but again I suspect there is a mystical edge to your thinking. You essentially argue against ‘fast’ knowledge in your blog [and in the context of tree felling, maybe that's justified], but to imply that there is a difference in knowledges just fudges the issue. ‘Slow’ knowledge is just lots of ‘fast’ knowledge carefully compiled and evaluated. The only difference between the two is down to quantity and timescale. We don’t chop the forest down now because we know lots more about it. And how do we know more now than previously? How have we come across this ‘slow’ knowledge – intuition? Maybe partly – but largely down to the accumulation of those countless little experiments and observations that long forgotten botanists, biologists, foresters, etc have done in the name of science.
Thanks Matt you have explained the scientific position so much better than I could hope to. Anna repeats a rather foggy view that I debate with New Agers constantly (usually to no avail): science is useful and has its place, yes; but there is also “some other” way of knowing which science cannot touch. It seems to me that this is merely a way of opting out of rational thought and scientific process whenever it suits, which is always quite arbitrary: how do we know what the limits of scientific inquiry may be? Who is to say? It all depends on what your arbitrary religious beliefs happen to be. I think the suggestion that science is closed to mysteries and these “other ways” of knowing are open to the unknown is a deception: as I said before religious beliefs are anything but an admission that we do not (yet) understand, but a claim that in fact we do know, and this “knowing” is beyond doubt- a very dangerous position to take with far reaching consequences for society.
Was thinking of you the other day Graham… I gave a talk in Bishop’s Castle (beautiful place) and at the end, something happened that has happened at the last three talks I have done. At the end, in the melee of people who want to ask you questions, someone came up and said “great talk, thanks, I think it would be even better if you checked this out”, and pushed a strip of paper into my hand, with http://www.projectcamelot.net written on, and some stuff about climate change being a scam.
These people always vanish as soon as they have said that, disappear back into the crowd. Anyway, in terms of the stuff you talk about here, have a look at this site, in terms of unproven, unscientific, anecdotal nonsense, this site is quite something! Still disagree with you about vaccination though. That’s another conversation though…. I just thought you’d enjoy this link, might make your blood boil!!
I do love this argument that climate change is a scam cooked up by the New World Order in order to enslave the world’s population (David Icke’s line). Oh yes, that explains really well why Bush denied its existence for his whole presidency, why Exxon and others actively funded bogus research and scientists have been vilified and rubbished. Really stands up well to scrutiny. Mad buggers.
Rob Why cant you see the connection between this sort of climate change denial irrationality and your own anti-vaccination/ pro-homeopathy/crop circle fantasy irrationality? I cant see any fundamental difference. “My kids aren’t vaccinated and they are quite healthy… touch wood” just about say it all. This would translate as : “Had to defrost the car again, hardest winter for 20 years, doesnt look like we are getting any of that Global Warming! Touch wood…” If you can believe in homeopathy with no evidence, or put other people at risk by not vaccinating with no evidence, you can hardly blame people for not believing in climate change. David Icke’s lizard conspiracy is really just an extension of the “all mainstream medicine is part of a conspiracy to poison us and make money”- which is strongly behind people’s suspicion of vaccination. What makes my blood boil, Rob (I didnt even waste my time looking at the website you give) is your complacent tone of “oh we will just have to disagree about the vaccination thing”- as if it is all just a matter of opinion. But it isnt, it’s a question of evidence. Beliefs have real effects in the real world and I wish you and all the other New Agers would take responsibility for yours.
Yeah – come on Rob – get with the program and start being as dismissive about homeopathy, acupunture, biodynamics and ufo’s as you are about climate change sceptics. The evidence is out there and you’re not stupid! In particular you really need to read up on vaccination – Graham and I haven’t even had any children and we seem to have made more of an effort to get informed about the facts on vaccination. Don’t believe the media nonsense – look at the evidence (try starting with Goldacre’s summary in Bad Science) – or are you with ‘Tony the war criminal mad Christian’ and ‘Cherie I’m as bonkers as him honest’ on MMR? Remember, good science says it’s OK to change your mind!
Graham, what do you propose we do after peak oil when petro-chemicals and therefore the centralised pharmaceutical industry are in decline? Would preventitive measures such as nutrition and cultivating overall wellbeing not be usefull? Or do you propose we abandon low cost, locally based thereapies along with the rest of the suite of skills that were part of a resilient community? I agree that there are a heap of charlatans out there and many of these thereapies aren’t backed up by scientific fact. But are you going to end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater? I think a healthy bit of the placebo effect has its role in soceity and in some respects is the best medicine as it allows the Being to do the healing instead of some mass produced pill that mightn’t be available in a few decades time…needless to say I wouldn’t recommend anyone avoids taking proven preventitive measures such as the MMR vaccine while they’re available. Both sides of the argument are food for thought though!
Hi Eoin Good point! I was wondering when someone was going to bring this up and of course you are right: it is oil that is largely responsible for the wonders of modern medicine- something the “alternative” therapists take for granted, I feel. And we wont know what has hit us once it is gone, and yes health is one of the areas that will be most effected. So it may be that placebo is all we will have, but actually as Cuba has shown, we can still have a science-based and effective modern medical service with far less oil: http://www.medicc.org/publications/medicc_review/1004/pages/cuban_medical_literature_2.html I dont think this is really the point of this deabte though becasue it is not an argument that the pro-alternative anti-science people use themselves- they will not concede that homeopathy etc is just a placebo! The wider issue is the side effects this kind of thinking has on society- I dont think magical thinking or superstition, or general credulity and gullibility will be useful qualities for us to cultivate in preparation for a life with diminished oil supplies.
Post a Comment