There’s another way of looking at this. Treatments that used to be alternative but have become mainstream didn’t suddenly start working when they became mainstream; they worked before, and mainstream practitioners adjusted their beliefs and practices when forced to. By analogy, some treatments that are “alternative” now will one day be seen to be valuable; the people using those treatments now may be ridiculed by the establishment (and many people on this blog) now, but what they’re doing suddenly becomes reasonable when the treatment is shown to work.

From a totally ahistoric perspective, rejecting all alternative treatments is a reasonable stance (”I’m sensible: I just use treatments that have been shown to work”) but when you start taking into account changes over time it starts to make a bit less sense. And then it starts making even less sense when you or a loved one has a condition that conventional therapies can’t alleviate: the “alternative” treatments you clutch at then may turn out to be straws, or they may simply be yet-to-become-mainstream treatments.

I say this notwithstanding Plait’s casual containment of his criticism (repeated ad nauseum by Plait and by Ben Goldacre, whose thinking he emulates in similar articles with no specific reference to the source of his beliefs) to “these techniques that have been tested and shown to be no better than placebos”. This is because Plait illogically treats any study failing to find, for a medicine (or technique), an effect differentiable from placebo as having disproven the effectiveness of that medicine (or technique) — or even of the entire system of treatment that it represents.

Plait and his fellow “skeptics”, here and in their other lairs on the web, repetitively make three bold assertions: that any orthodox western medicine must work, because it has been scientifically tested for efficacy; that it must be safe, because it has been scientifically tested for safety; and that any “alternative” treatment that is effective (which we could charitably interpret as efficacious) and safe has already been recognised as such by adoption into orthodox medicine.

The nature of such declarations couched in terms of science’s reliability to weed out drugs that are unsafe or inefficacious before they go to market or the reliability of science to make efficacious “alternative” methods “mainstream” is that of expressing a faith not in science at all but in the machinery of business: that the rationality, ethicality, and accuracy of the pharmaceutical industry causes it always to use science in that way. Expressed in the article above and in many of the comments on it is the inevitability that the machinery of business — technological advance, patent advantages, regulation, marketing, sales, profits, shareholder votes — will weed out products that are unsafe or ineffective and will base any decision not to manufacture and market a product purely upon its inefficacy or dangers. Put simply, the ideology at work here is that a product is manufactured and marketed by the pharmaceutical industry if and only if it is shown to be safe and efficacious.

This is a wonderful belief, and if true would lead to ever more interesting and efficacious remedies and even preventives with never a drug disaster, and I can understand the comfort that it gives those who hold it.

But a single exception disproves a generalisation. We have already heard here more than a single instance of a drug that has been on the market for many years before being shown to be unsafe or inefficacious or both (need I remind you of the recent meta-analysis of the ineffectiveness of SSRIs, or of the suicides they have become known to cause?). We have already heard here more than one instance of an “alternative” treatment of preventive that, though efficacious, has not been taken to the heart of the pharmaceutical industry or even to the heart of every “mainstream” practitioner. Even the mechanisms by which these failures occur are well understood and have been raised in this discussion.

Moreover, many other examples of efficacious “alternative” treatments and preventives are on easily accessible public record and have even passed muster in various meta-analyses — but remain “alternative”. Yet, from those most devout in their express faith in “science”, the most rational response to such freely available evidence has been to the effect “I wouldn’t even read it”.

As a study in religious fervour, it doesn’t get much more interesting than this: that those who profess that their divinations are based in something as utterly rational and potentially corroborative and self-correcting as the scientific method refuse to read or consider the product of that method that offers answers offending the beliefs of the devout.

The subject actually under discussion in the article and most of the comments on it is not that of science or its findings but that of the understandable but irrational forces that drive human beings to clod together: their fear of the outsider, the uncertain, the different. So far the discussion has largely ignored method and its merits, fact and its observability, wisdom and its getting, in favour of the acceptability of various flavours of attitude, dogma, dissidence, and — most tellingly — utter refusal to consider or even to read contrary findings.

Those readers who remain unconvinced that such attempts at social control are religious rather than scientific in nature might consider the various calls that the discussion has included to prevent scientific investigation — with the unwelcome possibilities it offers — of the “alternative” methods under fire, and the suggestions that no findings in favour of the efficacy of “alternative” methods should be permitted publication; that those who investigate “alternative” methods should lose funding and position; that those teaching or those using “alternative” methods should be imprisoned or even tortured.

Those offering such suggestions are not attempting to promote the free communication of ideas; to establish open dialogue as a basis for approximating to the truth; to confer, debate, or investigate. They are attempting to stamp out what they perceive to be competing beliefs.

The urge to eradicate beliefs contradicting one’s own is a mark not of scientific rationality but of religious fundamentalism. It is a type of insanity, dangerous to the individual and to society. The forces that drive it and the irrationality it signals are, as ever in religious circles, invisible to those so afflicted.

In the present case, those forces appear to be the link between the unquestionability of the “orthodox” consensus and the availability of funding to do science, and the resultant cultural taboo among scientists to investigate or even discuss rationally anything that has been stigmatised as irrational, from parapsychology (which nevertheless enjoys a great deal of military attention) and astrology all the way to vaccine safety and the efficacy of homoeopathy and acupuncture.

To touch any of these subjects (and, of course, others) is commonly regarded by scientists as the kiss of death to all potential for a stellar career in science. Yet the stigma of these topics’ irrationality arises not from their inherent irrationality at all but merely from a failure to conceive an explanation for the findings alleged in each of these areas. Far from arising from factual findings (attempting to discuss which would invite open contempt), the wall of silence on these topics arises from the clash between their unorthodox alleged findings and the believer’s orthodoxy.

Without pronouncing judgement either way upon, or even discussing, the validity or otherwise of any factual allegations in any of the subject areas effectively forbidden scientific investigation, it is possible to evaluate how closely scientifically “informed” conclusions as to their factuality or otherwise have been based in the scientific method.

Most pertinent here, of course, is the kind of article, and the kind of comment, upon “alternative” treatments and preventives that — without particular (not vague) reference to any investigation, or at least without the courtesy of taking into account substantial criticism of such a reference — assumes as a given their inefficacy and upon that basis their irrationality; refuses all discussion of the truth of its own premises; and treats anybody questioning those premises as beneath contempt or as warranting opprobrium of a kind usually reserved for child molesters.

Is that science? Is it rationality? Is it sanity? No: it is fundamentalism, pure and blind.

As a footnote, I note that the very body referred to in the newspaper source that the above article relies on for its scientific findings is the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, part of the National Institutes of Health, a body notorious for declaring all treatments other than very expensive ones “unproven” regardless of the state of the evidence — and that even so, its web site offers access to a host of studies on alternative medicine. Following up merely the a fraction of those on the topic most ridiculed by Plait — homoeopathy — reveals a large number of studies, published (despite efforts such as the above) in real (not fake Merck-funded) journals, that report positive and interesting findings, clinical, biological, and physical, concerning homoeopathy.

That the author of the above article (not to mention the authors of the comments on it similarly censoring scientific research potentially threatening their beliefs) and articles like it consistently attacking anything threatening to his beliefs failed even to look beyond a newspaper report for his sources of information does not reflects poorly on the journals publishing scientific work or on the worth of funding investigation of “alternative” treatments. Clearly it reflects instead on the integrity and rigorousness of the author too lazy, unwilling, or inadequate to think independently, discuss reasonably, or investigate openly any matter with the potential to shake the edifice of his poor understanding of the world to its wilfully ignorant foundations.

Here’s something for you. Scroll up. Go to the actual blog post. Y’know, the one I wrote? Just above here, on this very page? Look at the first sentence in the second full paragraph, where I say, “Let me be clear: I am not opposed to testing any so-called alternative medicines.”

And then you say that the idea of my article was to debunk alt med. Bzzzt! Wrong again! I guess I wasn’t clear when I wrote (again, in that article above, the one you’re ostensibly commenting on), “But I am decidedly against these techniques that have been tested and shown to be no better than placebos.”

And I’m the one you think looks uninformed. Sometimes, before going off on a rant, it helps to read, y’know, what I actually wrote.

Research is a process. Sometimes the results are ‘we found this… but it needs more research’.

I ask the blogger, Bad Astronomy – Is it more shocking to you that they spent billions of dollars or that they even challenged common alternative healing methods/medicines? Do you really find it inappropriate or surprising that someone is trying to scientifically challenge alternative medicine claims?

Science needs to challenge these claims, especially the more popular methods of alternative medicine, because people are using them and they could be dangerous or even effective. I hope we can agree that, science can be an important tool to help defuse false believes.

The idea of the article is to try to debunk the some of the myths in alternative medicine. I appreciate the skepticism. Yet, the way the author presented the ideas in the article are seemingly bias and could be confusing for the average reader. For example, the author found a quote on Acupuncture and then talks about the Acupressure study which are two different things. I feel the author should have distinguished between the two or at least defined the terms. There are scientific studies supporting Acupuncture models are valid.

The author also quotes, Dr. Edward Campion from the New England Journal of Medicine who says – “There’s very little basic science behind these things. Most of it begins with a tradition, or personal testimony and people’s beliefs, even as a fad. And then pressure comes: ‘It’s being popular, it’s being used, it should be studied.’ It turns things upside down,” I’m a little skeptical that ALL the alternative medicine research submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine has little basic science. It’s his job to wade through that research that deserves merit. There are researchers who are building on prior scientific research. If research submitted to the journal has no scientific basis, don’t publish it. I don’t see how an unapproved, unpublished research can “turn things upside down”. What is the issue? What is he referring to? His job? Does it turn his job upside down? Does it make him work a little harder, then maybe he might like?

The real question is: Are these particular studies valid enough to justify the cost? Yes, alternative methods need to be challenged, BUT my criticism is that studies need to be challenged in the best way so that taxpayer money is not wasted. This can be achieved by 1) building upon previous studies 2) choosing more popular techniques or methods. 3) testing different methods against each other for a reasonable, rational purpose. (Example: 1 acupressure point for a certain amount of time vs. 9 acupressure points for a limited amount of time for anxiety. These would yield different results, or no results at all. Contributing to a bigger picture of acupressure.)

The author presented the study regarding Acupressure to help loose weight.
A more pertinent question is does acupressure techniques change a behavior patterns (like overeating)?

The study only used one set of acupressure points, between the eyes. Different methods of acupressure could make different results. There are such a variety of different acupressure techniques. One example is EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique) that use a specific acupressure technique with multiple points. EFT is a popular method of changing negative thoughts and/or behavior patterns. I’ve observed that many people in the alternative medicine field are familiar with this technique and encourage patients to use it for calming, changing poor self-image, or even allergies. I have spoken to a number of people who testify that they find this technique effective at calming anxiety. Is it a placebo effect or not? This particular technique’s effectiveness needs to be determined and studied. If results show that it’s ineffective, patients would be encouraged by their practitioner to use anti-anxiety medication. BUT, if the results show that it’s effective, use of the technique would be an alternative to anti-anxiety medication, reducing the risk of negative side-effects that come from using a drug. It’s a win-win situation.

It’s interesting that the Acupressure weight study challenged this particular accupressure technique, but it’s results do not indicate that ALL acupressure or acupuncture is invalid or a hoax. This article is a little misleading and should explain (or give an example) of the ways science have proven alternative medicines to be effective (like acupressure and acupuncture). Overall, the article seems biased to me. For example, the author states this generalization, “As for therapies, acupuncture has been shown to help certain conditions, and yoga, massage, meditation and other relaxation methods may relieve symptoms like pain, anxiety and fatigue.” Then, the author give no examples of studies or quotes surrounding this statement, but gives plenty of evidence supporting his obvious bias against alternative medicine.

Scientists have started mapping out some ways which Acupuncture works, and have documented neural pathways, chemicals released, and hormones released during treatments. Personally, I haven’t seen too many studies regarding Acupressure.

The article states “However, the government also is funding studies of purported energy fields, distance healing and other approaches that have little if any biological plausibility or scientific evidence.”

I have worked for the government with researchers. It’s a fact that government research needs to go through boards who approve the validity of the research first, before they can recruit for a particular study. They require some supporting documentation before they can even embark on a study. The author seems to be uninformed.

Here is an example of a government study with a favorable outcome about Acupuncture. A study was done by University of Pennsylvania and Veteran’s Health Administration (VHA) on “Efficacy of Acupuncture as a Treatment for Chronic Shoulder Pain” this study, with whose conclusion reads: “The results suggest that acupuncture, combined with a home exercise program, may be an effective treatment for chronic shoulder pain. There may be no difference in efficacy between individualized and standardized acupuncture treatment. The use of standard points may make treatment easier for patient care and for further research studies, while not providing a significant disadvantage in outcome.” The study did indicate some success, and distinguished that in this case, there may be no difference in the outcome when using different methods of treatment. So, not all government studies are as disappointing as the author claims.

Bad Astronomy, you have the right to wave this seemingly biased article as your flag against alternative methods for healing, but it makes you look uninformed. I encourage you to remove your own personal bias and educate yourself more on both sides of the issue. Build the evidence yourself, instead of relying on seemingly bias journalism. Then maybe you could write something more educational and helpful to the public.

Echinacea doesn’t work? I thought I had read that according to some fairly decent testing, it was an effective immune booster when taken during the first stages of an illness. Taken regularly, it doesn’t work, because (IIRC) the immune system gets “tired” of the boost and drops back down to normal function. I could be wrong though.

Grand Lunar (#95) Said:

Wait, Echinacea doesn’t really work?

Is it good for anything, other than reducing the mass of people’s wallets?

I’d really like to know, since my family regulary uses this to get over a sickness quicker.
I have to wonder if our seemingly quick recovery from certain illnesses is just a placebo effect.

Indeed, my first thought on seeing this post was surprise that, “wait, echinacea doesn’t work?” And so I did some research (on Wikipedia, which is admittedly not the best source; though the particular article in question had appropriate citations, which increases its reliability a little).

And I realized that I was thinking of something slightly different.

I don’t use echinacea to cure colds. The only time I use echinacea is in cough drops – ie, for relieving coughs and sore throats. And while I admit again that Wikipedia is not the best source, it said one thing in particular that interested me:

According to Wallace Sampson, MD, its modern day use as a treatment for the common cold began when a Swiss herbal supplement maker was “erroneously told” that echinacea was used for cold prevention by Native American tribes who lived in the area of South Dakota.[4] Although Native American tribes didn’t use echinacea to prevent the common cold, some of the tribes did use echinacea to treat some of the symptoms that could be caused by the common cold: The Kiowa used it for coughs and sore throats, the Cheyenne for sore throats, the Pawnee for headaches, and many tribes used it as an analgesic, including the Sioux from South Dakota.

(and Wikipedia cited this as the source for that; I’ve no idea how reliable the book is)

SO, echinacea does not cure colds. It would appear, however, that it works reasonably well for relieving sore throats. Are there any studies on that?

JediBear (#82) Said:

There’s very little bogus medicine on the “conventional” side of the line, and very little legitimate medicine on the “alternative” side of the line.

(emphasis mine)
Very little? Maybe in terms of percentages, but I can think of a number of things that would probably be considered “alternative” medicine yet are most definitely legitimate: willow bark tea instead of aspirin, certain poppies as a painkiller, indeed anything that led to the discovery of some “conventional” medicine. I won’t speak for how effective they are, but they seem to classify as “alternative”, and they must work or they would not have been used to create a “conventional” medicine.

It would probably be better to avoid the tags “conventional” and “alternative” altogether, and simply refer to it as what it is.