As a promoter and fan of holistic, complementary and alternative therapies, I’m often irritated by those of a scientific, rational and evidence-based mindset.

The fascinating thing about such people is their assumed authoritative attitude - often an arrogance - that thinks if something can’t be proven by scientific and rational means, it can’t be much good.

There’s a lot of it about and I’m sick of it. The most galling aspect of the holistic and rational divide is how the rationalists control the terms of engagement – somehow making anything ‘unscientific’ or ‘’unproven’, of little value.

So obviously flawed when you stop to think about it, rationalism has nonetheless reached Emperor’s new clothes proportions - with people still rushing for fast-acting, ‘scientifically-proven’ and ‘evidence-based’ medical solutions despite such disasters as Vioxx, Seroxat and Thalidomide.

Religious in their scientific views, many rationalists are not happy about facing the sort of challenge that alternative medicine deals with on an everyday basis. Whether you like him or loathe him, just consider the kicking organic and complementary whipping boy Prince Charles got just this week on TV for speaking out and suggesting that conventional medics abandon their "conventional mindsets" on health policy.

Another supreme example of scientific arrogance comes in the form of Ben Goldacre, who, in his Guardian ‘Bad Science’ column, dishes out “satirical criticism of scientific inaccuracy, health scares, pseudoscience and quackery”.

An ardent critic of popular nutrition and lifestyle gurus like Gillian McKeith and Patrick Holford as well as anti-immunisation campaigners, homeopathy and iridology (and many other things that are - on his terms - hard to ‘prove’), Goldacre epitomises the brittle worldview that denies people of their own valuable personal knowledge and positive experience.

He and his ilk, those to whom ‘not scientific’ seems to mean ‘not true’, need reminding that the word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge. We all know things - and by the Webster's Dictionary definition that says science is "knowledge attained through study or practice" - we are all scientists.

Sadly however, we’ve been scared off being by countless boffins who have made us question what we know in our own experience and instinct to be true, with their expert-status, use of jargon and unquestioned power.

Our own fear and laziness too have allowed them to smother our instincts; having us going against our own judgement, headlong into counter-intuitive medical interventions and prescriptions.

“To anyone who’s interested in science,” says Goldacre, lauding his self-elevated medical status over us and characteristically going for the messenger and not the message,” it’s simply offensive to find newspapers and television channels filled with people who adopt a cloak of scientific authority … ‘Dr’ Gillian McKeith has a non-accredited correspondence course doctorate from the United States and a primetime show on Channel 4 television.”

I’m no fan of Gillian either, but sadly for Ben, growing numbers of people seem to be excited and inspired by taking a pro-active interest in their health, experimenting with food and diet. The same is true in holistic therapies - where despite the lurking, (again rational) spectre of government regulation - many are finding that ‘feeling’ better is a worthwhile validation, even if no costly trials back them up. They just know.

Maybe Ben is so shrill because the scientific stranglehold that has kept people in the dark - and arguably unwell - is loosening a little.

“They misrepresent, from their position of dominance in the mainstream media, what scientific evidence for a clinical assertion would actually look like,” says Ben. “The entire field is based on a small palette of simple academic errors.”

“But most offensive to me, as a hard working NHS doctor, is the way that media nutritionists assume the moral high ground, as if they were somehow the source of all that is right and good in the management of lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease and cancer” he adds, sounding like his monopoly is being challenged.

Sorry Ben, but the people I meet and know don’t care about these breaches of your lofty scientific rulebook. They’re too busy living their lives, taking their chances and trying stuff out in the real world. I say more power to their elbows and less to prescription-pad protocol, even if it is ‘evidence-based’ and ‘scientifically-proven’.

Quote

Shame some of us have detached from our own senses and lack trust in our own experience.

On a smaller scale, I have a friend who is a scientiest of sorts and everything must have proof. I did some very basic muscle testing with him holding a glass of water to his solar plexus and then an unopened can of DIET coke, and needless to say the results were spectacular. Not the difference in his energy levels but the speed with which he ran to his computer and typed in Aspartame into the British Medical Association website.... only to then announce that I was wrong about the negative impact of Aspartame.

You are totally right Carl, science is a quasi-religion, whereby all followers must have tangible proof/evidence. The same guy asked me "if chi exists how come we can't measure it then?"....

You live and learn or in some cases, test, measure, write paper, learn. Limited thought process in my experience.

I wonder if scientists believe in Love?

Quote

Q. Do scientists believe in love?

A. Are there any gold standard, double-blind, randomised trials available? (sorry that was another question)

Quote

Asif

I was interested in the 'muscle test' you referred to. I am NO fan of aspartame, but would be interested in what you did and the result. Does it work with any 'negative / bad' food etc. ?

Cheers

Elaine

Quote

For an even better result from a muscle test, use a specific muscle and hold the item of food against the parotid gland, or in the mouth. Much more accurate.

Quote

Hi guys,

It was something my chiropractor friend showed me. The kinesioligists amongst us will be able to provide a better description I'm sure (Thanks Jon).

The way it was done was to get the subject (the happy clapping science follower) to stand with his feet level and to put out his dominant arm out in front of him. I then calibrated his normal "strength" by pushing down on his extended arm until it started to give. My other hand was on the shoulder of his extended arm. (Don't know whay, was just told to, maybe an explanation from one of the experts on here wouldn;t go amiss).

I then go thim to hold the can of Toxic nerve poison (Diet Coke) to his solar plexus and tested his arm strength again. It was a lot easier to push his arm down this time. Then use something you know is good like a piece of fruit or water or vitamins to hold and test the arm again and it wil be strong. I have done it with the subject putting these in the mouth to greater effect however on this occasion I was also messing with the guys perception that we do not have an energy field because you can;t measure it...

He got weaker without actually having to drink the thing, illustrating that it just has to be in your energy field for it to affect you.

I do the muscle test during therapy to generate an understanding of the power of thought. Calibrate the normal strength of the muscle being tested, then ask the person to say out loud a disempowering phrase eg. "I'm weak and feeble" three times and you get the same effect as the diet coke did, repeat with the phrase ""i'm strong and positive" and notice the strength it generates. The confused look followed by an expression of wonderment is prceless.

"Modern western Science" lacks so much understanding its frightening. Carl keep up the fight man, I'm with you!

Quote

Thanks Asif

I'm gonna try that now - my family and friends will be livid that I've found this !! LOL

I'm a newbie to these sorts of things and am amazed and fascinated by how the body tells us what it wants - whats 'good' and whats 'bad'. I'm also interested in the 'power of the mind' and positive thinking etc.

Thanks again,

Elaine

Quote

Hi Carl,

I think sceptisim is healthy, but people like Goldacre really get my goat. He is writing from a position of ignorance about nutrition. He is therefore being unscientific or un-"knowledgeable". I have struggled for a long time to get my brain around these basic principles:

All living creatures (and plants and bacteria) need nutrients to grow, repair and just to maintain their homeostasis. If someone fails to supply their body with the nutrients it needs, it will fall ill. I cannot prove this statement. No-one can trial it because it is unethical. However, the Natiuonal Academy, composed of doctors in the main, issuse long documents advising us of known essential nutrients, and the amounts by and large in which they are needed (RDA). A cursary look at a typical self-selected diet will reveal that these diets fail to meet the minimum amounts for many things, let alone the RDA. A look at government surveys on the typical population intake of essential nutrients reveals that most people are deficient of ceretain things (eg magnesium and selenium). So when you visit a doctor, why does he or she ignore your nutritional status (unless a deficiency shows up in a blood test)? and then starts giving you drugs. In my view, no amount of drugs will compensate for a nutritional deficiency. So who is being scientific?

I'm no great fan of the popular "nutritionalists" either, but at least they are providing focus. My own experience has shown me that many health problems have poor nutritional status at their core.

I read the governments action plan on sustainable food production this week. The think that struck me was, right up front, it (effectively) states that the health of our nation is beng compromised by food with poor nutritional content. Equally it recognises that intensive farming produces too much pollution. It is plausible that pollution causes diseases like cancer (I can't prove this either), but would anyone disasgree with this? Another principle ignored by doctors. So if anyone presents as ill, should not the first recourse be to cleanse the body and make sure their nutrition is up to scratch? It does not make sense to me to start putting more toxic chemicals (drugs) into a body that is already overly toxic. We come in contact with at least 200 toxins daily, and that's if you are careful!

So could someone explain to me why doctors rubbish therapists who try to resolve these issues?. Is it just their ignorance or is there some ulterior motive?

Cheers,

Nick

Quote

1. I don't want to replace rational thought - I want to expand/complement it. Magic, wishful think etc could all play their part and obviously do even for 'scientists'
2. I don't believe science denies personal experience - I'm saying - in truth - science is personal experience. My experiences are not infallible; they inform me either way in my journey (if I'm lucky)
3. What is Quackery?
4. "Self-centred"? - Interesting: "Scientists" often claim an objectivity it seems; but fail to realise they are part of the experiment. No research can be conducted without a 'self' present (ultimately making a partial judgement) often satisfying a well-hidden, though no-doubt well-meaning agenda. Is science making people less selfish?
5. "Your agenda is a quacks’ charter for exploitation and harm." - show me the evidence!

Last edited: 14-03-2007 07:05:59 PM

Quote

Thanks Asif, heres a description to get a more accurate response.
Have the person put their arm straight out in front of them, now have them turn their hand so the palm is facing away from the centre, e.g. using the right arm, straight out in front with the palm facing RIGHT. The arm is twisted. Now press just above the wrist downward at 45 degrees. This is the test for the specific muscle pectoralis major clavicular, and relates to stomach energy. Now if you have the person hold a food substance against the side of their throat, next to the parotid gland, and test, you will have a very accurate response as to wether that particular food is good or not good. The pressure does not have to much too strong, you will feel the response really easily.

Quote

Hi Carl,

I would like to add to my comment that it looks like you criticisms of Ben Goldacre are just ad-hominems and straw man arguments. You paint pictures of scientists that no scientist would recognise.

Instead of personal attacks and silly caricatures, can you give just one example of where Ben Goldacre was wrong in his attack on the nutritionists? Anything that he said that was not factually correct?

Your arguments appear to lack and substance without concrete examples.,

Andy

Quote

I think healthy scepticism is good and infact even bad sceptism is good ...it keeps us lean and on our toes.

Orthodox and complementary all have their Chancers and Scam merchants.

Why control it ?.... just let it rip...the wheat is sorted from the chaff.

When we denounce the rational we both enlarge the debate but potentially add to its constriction....so Im up for all of it!

On Scientists my thoughts are most of them are a bunch of arrogant reductionists who have little knowledge of the philosohy of science . Are caught up in the illusion of their own " objectivity"...can't see the wood for the trees and 9 times out of 10...are completely unaware of the often suspect a priori assumptions on which their science flows..........and especially if they're Tories!!

As one can safely say "A is not A"

Hows that for dogma?

Last edited: 16-03-2007 03:47:22 PM

Quote

"On Scientists my thoughts are most of them are a bunch of arrogant reductionists who have little knowledge of the philosohy of science . Are caught up in the illusion of their own " objectivity"..."

Have you examples? I think you also confuse scientists with science. Scientists may well suffer the stupidities and arrogance of all of us, but science as a process is excellent at weeding out such fallibilities. That is why it is a trustworthy path to knowledge.

Do you really believe this? Do you think when you are on an airplane that all that is keeping you up in the sky is reductionist, illusory objectivity?

In other words, do you deny the existence of an external reality that exists independently of your wishes and subjective experience, that can be discovered, albeit imperfectly, through careful observation and the scientific process?

Quote

Hi Andy

As you dont know me you wont know that I have a somewhat flippant style and really dont take things I say as literal ....you have to read between the lines a bit.

Anyhow to answer you .No I'm not a solopsist and as a dialectical materialist the very nature of the word 'material ' counts that out for sure . Reductionism has its place just as Newton has his in the world of Einstein.However I am aware of its philosophical limitations .

Science is in evolution as much as anything else...not only in what it reveals but in its own methodology and paradigms.

Im afraid that in suchplaces as this I along with most of us will fall on the sword of generalisation but this has its place too, and I kind of rely on the reader to intuate a liitle as to what Im getting at .

If I might also add you too are speaking in very general terms and the way you put things leads me to think you may have quite a narrow view of science.

Also there are areas where I think Science has little or no place as the mind has its limits to experience

Tolerance is the name of the game here.

Last edited: 17-03-2007 04:01:43 PM

Quote

Hi,

What an interesting debate!

We can all have wondeful debates and disagreements when we use one word to mean several things. There is really no point in debating something until you understand what the words mean. So I would like someone to tell me what science is. I put in the google search "define: science". (You can command google to produce definitions like this). It gave me 28 definitions, no two of which were exactly alike (try it, many are wildly different). The one I thought was closest to my understanding was:

"A systematic field of study or body of knowledge that aims, through experiment, observation, and deduction, to produce reliable explanations of phenomena, with reference to the material and physical world."

I believe that many so called scientists will say that if something has not gone through a double-blind massive population study, it is not scientific. They are wrong. If you take for example, Ayveduric medicine, it is body of knowledge based on observation over thousands of years that can produce reproducible effects. By any definition it is scientific, but modern day scientist would never accept that.


On the othe hand, take the recommendations for a high carb, low fat diet. Is that based on massive double blind trials? No. In fact you will be hard pressed to find even one study that demonstrated the health benifits. In fact, I've looked high and low for one of these, and in the end gave up. But ask any health professional and they will tell you that it is based on scientific evidence. Well, it is not. The trouble with people who claim conventional wisdom is backed by scientific evidence is that they do not check out the facts for themselves. Now a high carb, low fat diet is better than a standard American junk food diet, but that still does not mean it is correct and still does not excuse the lack of evidence.

So what sort of science are you guys talking about?

Cheers,

Nick

Quote

Wel Nick you have just made some very good points there .The trouble with science and scientists is they are subject to subjectivity both at the personal and the institutional level. But like all of us when we are part of something we often cant see this subject level. Like not being able to see the wood for the trees.
Not all scientists have an understanding of philosophy and are not able to evaluate their own methodology.

Empiricism suffers from this quite badly . Often you will hear such and such doesn't exist because tests showed it was'nt there. Well a test is limited to its own constraints ,anything outside of that it can only say it doesnt exist in terms of itself.In otherwords ''absence of proof is not proof of absence''

Another thing you will find is the market place has a huge influence over what 'science' is used and what the results are . The pharmaceuticals are great at this one . ...and if we dont find out they're behind it we tend to take it as Gospel.

So much in life is not as it appears ...and this goes for " science" as much as anything else.

Its a case of "buyer beware"

Last edited: 18-03-2007 07:28:08 AM

Quote

Hi John,

Aw shucks! Does that mean there is not a great conspiracy trying to keep things from us after all? It's just people being subjective.

I've always thought the demand for clinical trials was just a way of suppressing holistic therapy by pharamaceutical companies. I can't prove it, but as you say absence of proof is no proof of absence.

The clinical trial concept is magic. Usually their results favour the drug and show it to be safe most of the time. They do this by loading the dice and cooking the books. Then a few years later someone discovers the trial was unsound, the drug harmful to too many people and maybe the drug company gets fined. In the mean time they've sold billions of those little pills and made a packet.

They can do even better than that. How's your cholesterol? The chances are it is too high. Who says? Well your doctor. Who told him. Well the BMA. Who told them. The Americans. Who told them? I don't know. It certainly was not the research. But every time the recommendation for cholesterol goes down, the drug companies make another packet and the NHS stands on the verge of bankrupcy.
I've known the recommendation for cholesterol go from 6, to 5.6, to 5.2 to 5 to now it's warming up to go to 4.7. Statins reduce inflamation and are particularly useful for people with inflamed arteries - usually to people who have had one heart event. They also reduce cholesterol. That does not mean they should be recommended at the population level. (There are side effects - and did you know they can cause heart failure?). Yet I've known doctors think they should be put n the water supply. Thankfully that won't happen because the drug companies will not be able to rip us off. All you have to do to is find a drug that does something, and convince the medical professon that that somethng saves lives and it is a licence to print money. They even have the cheek to advertise on television. "If you are over 35 (?), there is a 50% chance your cholesterol is too high". You see the disease now is not heart disease, it's high choleserol. They are very clever.

I came across a woman who thought she was doing really well because she its taking only a small amount of a statin and her cholesterol was 2.7. I think she thought that if she could get rid of it all together, she'd be really healthy. I hadn't the heart to tell her that as cholesterol reduces, the "all cause" risk of death increases.

So the same guy who may be prescribing statins to his patients, is saying that his profession is based on science, and people who use holistic cures are using mumbo jumbo. Well if that is his science, he can keep it!

Warm regards,

Nick

Quote

Here's an excerpt from a book I enjoyed about shamanism which I think is kinda relevant to this discussion. It's a short account of a meeting between in a Peruvian shaman (kuraq) and a neurosurgeon.


...Several years ago, Americo agreed to meet with a noted neurosurgeon and a
contingent of physicians and anthropologists who were studying indigenous
healing practices. He brought with him one of his teachers, a kuraq who
rarely left his village high in the Andes. Americo did not identify the
kuraq as Q'ero, although he well could have been since Americo was trained
primarily by Q-ero paqos. In any case, the meeting recounted below took
place in a hotel in Cuzco, where the neurosurgeon spent considerable time
quizzing Americo about his healing techniques and those of the Andes
regions. He then turned his attention to the kuraq.

"The kuraq carefully considered the surgeon's words for a few minutes, then
he shook his head and said no, he could not. 'I cannot do those things,' the
kuraq admitted, 'but when you are dying, when you are growing cold and the
doctors have given up on you, then I can go out into the cosmos and bring
back your soul. I can put it back into your body, and then you may walk
again. Can you do that?'"

From "Keepers of the Ancient Knowledge" by Joan Parisi Wilcox

Quote

Hi Andy,

I liked that! But I'm sure the neurologist though the kuraq was making it up and the concepts he was talking about did not exist.

After discovering I have a very serious disease, the most important lesson I learned was that my body (and mind) belong to me. I had to take responsibility for my own health. Now, it really wrankles when some one tells me "the doctor was very pleased with me", because I then know that they have not taken that first step.

Not that I am against doctors. In fact I have great respect for them. As a breed they are very valuable people. You just have to let them know who is in charge of you, and they they usually respect you for it.

Cheers,

Nick

Quote

Everything has its place ....the trick is knowing where it begins and ends.

Quote