This duck is riddled with quackery.
Foreword: Science wasn’t my favorite subject in school. In fact, sometimes I hated science class. Gathering specimens and making notes, then comparing those notes and making more notes for the sake of ensuring accuracy was exhausting to me. So when I say what I’m about to say, I must preface it by emphasizing that I’m humbled by all of the folks who spend their lives trying to make healthcare legitimate and safe for the masses.
I recently ran across an article entitled “How to Spot a ‘Quacky’ website”. It warned people to steer clear from any website that:
-Generally promotes “alternative,” “complementary,” and/or “integrative” methods of treatment
-promotes “nontoxic,” “natural,” “holistic,” or “miraculous” treatments.
While I can’t say that I promote miraculous treatments–and, indeed, I’m also sometimes a bit of a skeptic—I do wholeheartedly promote many holistic therapies relating to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Yet, according to some of these rules, I’m a sort of quack running a “quacky” website.
In this short essay, I plan to a) Examine the reasons why I’m called a quack and b) Explain why I stand wholeheartedly by what I write, whether or not it makes me a quack.
According to the Quackwatch website, science demands that people who make claims must provide substantial proof to back up those claims. That proof must come by way of sound studies, a well-balanced evaluation, and confirmation by other knowledgeable people. However, not all promoters of complementary and alternative medicine stand by the same rules.
Some complementary and alternative treatments rely mostly upon anecdotal evidence and so-called “sloppy” facts such as, “This medicine has been successful for thousands of years.” Also, the placebo effect is so potent that people, not the treatments, could really be the ones healing their own abnormal physiologies just by believing that they are supposed to be cured.
People who adhere to the strict standards of scientific proof assume that this translates to complete quackery. After all, where are the regulations? They don’t want anyone getting ripped off or, worse, killed by peddlers of fake medicine.
So, what do science sticklers propose we do to provide substantial proof? They don’t just want us to come up with studies; they want us to construct sturdy double-blind tests. In a double-blind test, neither the people administering a study nor the study’s participants know who’s getting the real drug/treatment and who’s getting the placebo. Only at the end of the trial, when results are being collected, will the truth be revealed. This brilliant method of research aims to eliminate any sort of bias on either side of the spectrum.
I appreciate the idea of studying and standardizing all medicine in order to make it safe and reliable. Maybe then more insurance companies would cover more of it. However, I have two major concerns with the demands for double-blind tests:
Concern Number One: Double-blind studies aren’t infallible, not even when they’re designed properly (randomized and placebo-controlled.) Firstly, the people willing to participate may not be perfect representatives of a whole population. Additionally, some studies—even double-blind studies—rely on subjective responses. Take anti-depressant medications, for example: In the course of a study, both the participants who take the placebo and the participants who take the actual test drug will need to interpret a questionnaire and then offer a subjective analysis of how depressed they feel. The study could look at literal factors such as presence of chemicals in the brain, but such hard facts don’t necessarily prove that someone is or isn’t feeling depressed.
Concern Number Two: Applying double-blind studies to complementary and alternative medicine is often impossible. How can a practitioner such as an acupuncturist be blinded to the treatment he is offering to study participants? He either knows he’s doing it properly or he knows he’s giving a placebo treatment.
Science has its limits, no matter what it is attempting to etch in stone. That is why facts change. (Remember when Earth was flat and in the center of the Universe?)
Sometimes the subject of study far transcends the capacity of a pen, paper, and microscope. When it comes to the study of love, for example, science gurus examine alleged “love chemicals” that flow in the brain such as serotonin, oxytocin, vasopressin, and norepinephrine. They investigate areas in the brain that are thought to light up when a person has loving feelings.
Psychologists go to great lengths to organize love into categories such as romantic love and platonic love. American psychologist R.J. Sternberg said that interpersonal love requires a combination of intimacy, passion, and commitment. Some psychology experts even break down love into stages: first lust, then attraction, and finally attachment.
But none of that encapsulates love. No one—not even scientists who live with their eyes glued hard facts—could truthfully say that the love they have for their families and friends can be quantified by science. Love is love.
I’m not suggesting that complementary and alternative medicine or holistic approaches to health are equivalent to love, but some of their components are similar. For example, the idea of body energy (also called Qi and Prana) may not be entirely understood, but I know it exists when I close my eyes and feel it flowing through my body.
Does that make me a quack? If so, I’m proud to be one.
