Bizarre post on Science-Based Medicine

[salvorhardin]

Wallace Sampson writing at Science-Based Medicine seems to be arguing against national health care for fear that the political system will be used to enshrine alt-med in federal health policy and law:

Licensing of chiropractors, acupuncturists, naturopaths in US states lends legitimacy. Those occupations got licensing through political pressure and a lot of campaign contributions.

Once included in a federal system, they will be more difficult to expel. If we can meet sectarianism in the open field, I think they have lesser chance for success. But once entwined in the net of the law, they are barely reachable.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1244

This seems like bizarre argument to me, similar to NRA nuts who argue that any gun control regulation will lead to the loss of the right to bear arms. I'm sure that cranks like Dennis Kucinich will try, and possibly succeed, in getting alt-med paid for by any proposed national health care program but good gawd, the sCAMmers are already out there. They're getting alt-med into University medical training programs, and some insurance companies already pay for treatments that have little evidence to demonstrate effectiveness (such as chiropractic and acupuncture). Also, sCAM is doing quite well for itself in the free market. I have little hope that it won't continue to do so despite the best efforts of skeptics. Acceptance of non-evidenced based medicine is a cultural and educational problem. To disallow health care for 47 million uninsured Americans, and millions more who are underinsured, for fear that homeopathy might be paid for is just insane to me.

On edit: Maybe a better analogy would be that arguing against national health care for fear of it being co-opted by alt-med woos is like arguing against having a military for fear it'll be co-opted by believers in pseudoscience and the paranormal (ala General Stubblebine).

[charlie]

1. I suspect he's opposed

to federal administration of insurance on principle and straining for ways to alarm the anti-CAM crowd. When he says something like this:

Centralized medical systems are based on the assumptions that physicians cannot control costs and their own behavior, and are self-serving at others’ expense.

it looks like the old "feds will get between you and your doctor" scare. It's also a howling mischaracterization. Americans are worn out by medical syndicates bleeding them dry and insurers who extract ransoms, then renege on their agreements. Who's been arguing that we need to get doctors under control?

I agree, sticking with our el crappo system just to have a bulwark against alt-med is nuts, like driving a high-maintenance deathtrap so no one will steal it.

It's funny, Sampson's argument is one long used by CAM -- medicine is too controlled, robbing you of choice.

[salvorhardin]

2. I think you're right.

It's just weird to hear this argument coming from Wallace Sampson. He was one of the founders, along with Paul Kurtz, of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine and Aberrant Medical Practices, and is a retired hematologist and oncologist.

[LeftishBrit]

3. I think it's just an excuse

This writer seems to have his own irrational religion - worship of the 'free market' - and will drag anything into his opposition to public health care.

Unfortunately, such statements just provide ammunition for those who equate support for allopathic medicine with support for for-profit health care - despite the fact that allopathic medicine is the dominant form of medicine in all countries with 'socialized medicine'.

[salvorhardin]

4. Now that's a term I think we should abolish

Allopathic that is. It was made up by Samuel Hahnemann, the guy who created homeopathy and is said to mean "other than the disease". In other words, it's a term of disparagement and unfavorably compares evidence-based medicine to snake oil.

[LeftishBrit]

5. Good point

I was consciously trying to avoid the other common term 'Western medicine'. Especially as someone who knows several Chinese medical researchers, I find this an extremely misleading and rather condescending term. It is the sort of medicine that is used by most who can afford/ get access to it; rather than specifically by 'Westerners'.

[salvorhardin]

6. You're damn right it's condescending

I think evidenced-based medicine is a good term for actual medical practice

I'm still not sure what to call alt-med woo. I hate to use 'CAM' because that's their marketing term designed to legitimize woo but in the U.S. we have the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine so it has already been legitimized to a great extent.

[realisticphish]

7. i like "evidence based medicine" as well

I call alt-med stuff "Voodoo Medicine," though I think that one would probably offend someone (even though I think it's entirely accurate)

[moggie]

8. Faith-based medicine

Of course, some people will think that's a positive description.

[LeftishBrit]

10. Trouble is...

if you use 'evidence-based', its opponents will simply say that THEIR approach is what is evidence-based, and that the users of 'conventional' medicine are ignoring or even suppressing evidence.

I tend most often to use 'modern medicine', though that too has its limitations, as things like chelation are pretty modern too; they just don't work unless you are suffering from acute metal poisoning.

[moggie]

11. To quote Tim Minchin

You know what they call "alternative medicine" that's been proved to work? Medicine.

[salvorhardin]

12. That's always a problem

The crackpots want the air of legitimacy that science and skepticism provide so they misappropriate terms. Suddenly holocaust deniers and global warming denialists are skeptics and New Thought peddlers are dressing up their magical thinking in terms stolen from quantum mechanics. So-called ghost hunters use legitimate electronic test equipment in thoroughly clueless ways.

Maybe the best we can do, if we're trying to be non-confrontational in tone, is to simply call it medicine or science while giving the cranks their due as skeptics then proceeding to thoroughly demolish their argument. Oh, and making sure to use the terms liar and fraud whenever they're factual. Wakefield for instance. I think it should be pointed out whenever possible that investigative journalist Brian Deer has shown Wakefield's research to be not merely misguided but actively fraudulent.

[mr blur]

9. I think it was invented just to give an air of legitimacy

to "homeopathic". Make up a spurious label (which is similar to 'homeopathic') for "proper" medicine and you instantly confer a seriousness to homeopathy which it doesn't merit.