Tell Me Sweet, Sweet Lies

June 14, 2008 at 4:04 pm 7 comments

One of the things that I spend some spare time doing is debating Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) advocates on the intertubes. The wide, wonderful, and wacky world of CAM is full of all manner of cure-alls for whatever ails you. From reflexology to homeopathy to magnet therapy, if you’ve got an illness then surely there’s someone on google claiming that they can heal you.

Something that I have noticed during these enlightened meeting of the minds (or flamewars, if you prefer) is a certain rhetorical strategy that CAM advocates use that seems to trip a good number of people up. Namely, it’s somewhat reminiscent of a bait-and-switch tactic.

CAM advocates are fond of pointing out the flaws of “mainstream” medicine. Obscene profits resulting from direct-to-consumer advertising? Check. Collusion between pharmaceutical companies, teaching / treating physicians, and researchers? Check. Recent attempts to turn the CDC and FDA into political, not scientific, entities? Check. Manufacturers allowed to bury data and hide potential adverse outcomes from regulators? Check. It goes on, but the problem is that they are right on many points. Not all points, mind you – as they tend to have a propensity to resort to tin-foil conspiracies – but on many points.

Our system of health care and, by extension, the support structure of that system (which includes R&D) has many flaws. It’s top-heavy and ultimately concerned with what pays. That’s the bait, and here’s the switch: the argument then morphs to say that CAM has none of these problems and, consequently, is a better choice for consumers and patients alike.

Not so fast, sparky. First off, CAM has some dirt on its hands as well, what with being a multi-million dollar industry, but that’s another post. On point, however, is that the conclusion that CAM is a better choice doesn’t follow from the premise that “mainstream” medicine has flaws. To examine the veracity of that, just have a look at the data. There’s no science to support the vast majority of CAM treatment modalities, and where science does support certain CAM modalities it does not support it to the extent that CAM advocates claim (case in point: acupuncture). In other words, staying at home, drinking water, and eating sugar pills doesn’t have the flaws of “mainstream” medicine…but it won’t cure your cancer, either.

In my view (not that it is worth much) what is a “better” choice for patients amounts to what represents the most efficacious treatment. Sure, you can pay $10 for the homeopathic remedy versus the $50 for the antibiotics – but at the end of the day, only one of those is going to be genuinely helpful for fighting illness or disease.

I forget who said that the best way to pass your lies is to sprinkle them with a dash of the truth, but they could’ve been a CAM advocate.


Entry filed under: Medicine, Science, Skepticism. Tags: , , .

Good Afternoon. Speak No Evil…

7 Comments Add your own

  • 1. PalMD  |  June 19, 2008 at 6:27 pm

    Nicely said, and welcome to the blogosphere. Prepare to be assimilated.

  • 2. varkam  |  June 19, 2008 at 10:46 pm

    Thank you for the welcome! Being assimilated is awesome.

  • 3. dvnutrix  |  June 20, 2008 at 7:22 am

    Fleetwood Mac is a great assistance to blogging. An impressive debut to the Skeptics’ Circle.

  • 4. zaxter  |  June 27, 2008 at 2:36 am

    Great post! I really appreciate the humor you use in your blog. A big problem with skeptic blogs is their dryness, but yours is thoroughly readable.
    It should be pointed out that not only is CAM a multi-million dollar business, but that many of the snake oil pills sold at the drugstore are manufactured by subsidiaries of the same “big pharma” companies these woo-woos fear so much. Why is it that we can’t be critical of pharmaceutical companies & CAM at the same time? Similar to the assumption that anyone critical of Dubya must be a card carrying democrat. Weird.

  • 5. varkam  |  June 27, 2008 at 3:34 am

    @ zaxter:

    Thanks for your kind words! I’m glad that you enjoyed my post, and I’ll continue to try to bring the funny right along with the…uh…skeptic. At any rate, thank you!

    I think that we both can and should be critical of both, but I think our criticism needs to be grounded in legitimacy; rather than the criticism that is leveled at “Big Pharma” from woos, which usually amounts to tin-foil-hattery.

  • 6. Ronni Gestether  |  November 11, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    homepathic remedies are composed of so many organic and natural methods that is why i really like it. ^

    Latest content coming from our internet site

  • 7. Louisa Bahamonde  |  March 13, 2013 at 9:57 pm

    Homeopathy, you see, isn’t a drug. It’s not a chemical. So you can drink all you want and you won’t overdose on it. That’s not a defect in homeopathy — it’s a remarkable advantage! It means that while 200,000+ Americans are killed each year by toxic pharmaceutical drugs, no one is harmed by homeopathy. Not even those who are desperately trying to be harmed by it!..

    My web site


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Add to Technorati Favorites
Add to Google

%d bloggers like this: