Trick or Treatment—The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine (Electronic book text)

The mass media must decide whether it wants to report medical issues responsibly in order to inform the public, or to report it luridly in order to create shocking headlines. Unfortunately, the media has a profit motive and a lack of discipline, so the latter option will probably continue to be too tempting, particularly in light of how easy it is to scaremonger. This was demonstrated by an article entitled ‘Mysterious Killer Chemical’, published in 2005, which highlighted the dangers of the chemical DiHydrogen MonOxide, sometimes called DHMO.

It’s found in many different cancers, but there’s no proven causal link between its presence and the cancers in which it lurks — so far. The figures are astonishing — DHMO has been found in over 95 % of all fatal cervical cancers, and in over 85 % of all cancers collected from terminal cancer patients. Despite this, it is still used as an industrial solvent and coolant, as a fire retardant and suppressant, in the manufacture of biological and chemical weapons, in nuclear power plants — and surprisingly, by elite athletes in some endurance sports. However, the athletes later find that withdrawal from DHMO can be difficult, and sometimes, fatal. Medically, it is almost always involved in diseases that have sweating, vomiting and diarrhoea as their symptoms. One reason that DHMO can be so dangerous is its chameleon-like ability to not only blend in with the background, but also to change its state. As a solid, it causes severe tissue burns, while in its hot gaseous state, it kills hundreds of people each year. Thousands more die each year by breathing in small quantities of liquid DHMO into their lungs.

In fact, DHMO is just a highfalutin name for plain water (H₂O), and the article was written by the Australian science journalist Karl Kruszelnicki to show how easy it is to scare the public. He went on to point out: ‘You can give people this totally accurate (but emotionally laden, and sensationalist) information about water. When you then survey these people, about three-quarters of them will willingly sign a petition to ban it.’

7 Doctors

Doctors ought to be ambassadors for evidence-based medicine, combining the best information from research with their own experience and knowledge of the particular patient in order to offer the best treatment options. This should mean that they discourage alternative treatments which generally come under the headings of unproven, disproven, dangerous or expensive.

Regrettably, too many GPs seem to take an entirely different stance. The numbers vary from country to country, but a reasonable ballpark figure is that roughly half of GPs refer patients to alternative therapists, and many more will respond positively to the idea of their patients trying remedies from the alternative-health section of the local pharmacy or health-food store. This raises the question, why are so many GPs tolerating, promoting, or even using bogus treatments?

One explanation could be ignorance. Many doctors may not be aware that most homeopathic remedies contain absolutely no trace of any active ingredient. They may not realize that the latest trials for acupuncture indicate that it offers negligible or no pain relief beyond placebo. They may be oblivious to the risks associated with spinal manipulation, and uninformed about the highly variable evidence relating to herbal remedies. Therefore, doctors may be giving the benefit of the doubt to treatments that really ought to be avoided.

Another, perhaps more important, factor is that doctors are constantly dealing with patients who have coughs, colds, backaches and other conditions which are either difficult or impossible to treat. Many of these troubling ailments will disappear over the course of a few days or weeks, so doctors might advise plenty of rest, a day off work, some paracetamol pills, or simply carrying on as normal. Some patients, however, are disappointed by these sorts of suggestions, and they may pester the doctor for something more obviously medical. Hence, it might be expedient for doctors to recommend something that placates the patient and which might also help them deal with the symptoms via the placebo effect. This might mean encouraging a patient to try a herbal or homeopathic remedy from a health-food store or pharmacy, even though the doctor might be aware that there is no evidence to support the use of either option.

This approach to patients — fobbing them off with placebos — was touched upon earlier in the chapter. It is paternalistic and inevitably involves deception. It also has negative consequences, such as medicalizing minor conditions which should be simply left alone, endorsing bogus remedies and encouraging patients in the direction of acupuncturists, homeopaths, chiropractors and herbalists.