Why?

[seren]

Hi there,

I found my way here through a rather convoluted path. I guess I'm a sceptic regarding conspiracy theories and I certainly have no time for homeopathy.
Having said that I must admit to hovering on the borders of woo-woo land, at least from your perspective, since I have an interest in herbal medicine (I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about it, but I have time for the idea).

Which brings me to my questions. Since, as your article on it states, plants do contain active compounds which can affect the human body and mind (whether for good or ill), surely it's not a case of being "sceptical" of it? As a notion it does have some basis in fact, unlike, say Mediumship or Homeopathy. It seems to me that there's a distinction between out and out bunkum and poorly-tested science. What is it exactly that people are sceptical of in Western Herbal medicine? Concern I could understand, if the remedies are as untested as you suggest, but not scepticism. Have herbalists made claims that can be disproved? If so, I'd be interested in seeing them for my own education.

Apart from that, my only other question is why? I can see why people would wish to debunk racist nonsense from the likes of David Icke, and I can see why so-called spiritualists and mediums could be harmful, but really I don't see why it's a problem if some daftie wants to lie around with polished rocks on their head listening to whale song. If they get something out of it, who am I to complain? Same as people who go to church. Doesn't do anything for me, but each to their own. You could argue that at the very extreme people may attempt to cure cancer with psychic healing or something- but that really is an extreme.

Grateful for your consideration of my questions.

[Jocky]

Hi Seren, and a warm welcome to UKS

You are definitely acting in a properly skeptical manner, if you ask me - questioning what you read, trying to get further info. Nobody in a skeptic organisation should ever object to probing questioning, conducted in a rational and reasonable manner :)

I don't see why it's a problem if some daftie wants to lie around with polished rocks on their head listening to whale song. If they get something out of it, who am I to complain? Same as people who go to church. Doesn't do anything for me, but each to their own.

I agree with many of your sentiments here - people have freedom of action in a free country, and if they really must do this kinda daft stuff then let 'em. However there are two real cruch points when I think it ceases to become alright, when it really grates on me to just 'let it go'.

1. There is a potential for harm in false claims made for so-called remedies - if people lie about with crystals on their heads when they really should go to see a proper doctor, there is a danger that their condition will deteriorate. It doesn't have to be as extreme as cancer to be dangerous (although there have been tragic instances when exactly that has happened).

2. There are lots of people making lots of money out of palpably false claims - if you picked up your crystal from the seashore then that's one thing, but if you were fleeced for thirty quid by a snake-oil salesman for it then you've been done. Consumers have a right to be protected from such con tricks, just as they should be protected from misleading advertising or sales of any other sorts of goods.

The same kind of arguments can be applied to some flavours of religion (I stress some - there's a big topic for debate there!). For example, somebody who thinks they've been "healed by faith", and has made a substantial 'donation to the church' to express their gratitude, may suffer a damaging relapse and end up worse off than they were to start with.

As far as herbal remedies are concerned, as you say they are a different thing to homeopathy - at least they've got something in them which hasn't been diluted by a factor of many millions! However, they are not prescribed by doctors and I believe there are dangers that they may contain things which are contra-indicated with conventional treatments, and issues of this sort. There are other here more knowledgable about this than me, I leave it to them to discuss it.

[Admin]

Hi Seren, and welcome.

I think you're equating skepticism with disbelief. Skepticism is about finding out the truth in matters - not opposing things for the sake of it.

Being a Skeptic and being sceptical are two different things.

If there's one area of alternative medicine that has promise it's herbal medicine. I will qualify that by saying that the scientific study of herbal medicine is where the promise lies.

As for the harm issue. Well as with all alternative medicine it can appear to be quite harmless but can actually be quite dangerous. People self-diagnose (when they have no medical skill at all), and many herbal practitioners, who are also medically unqualified, take on the role of doctor and claim to be able to cure all sorts of ailments including cancer.

If someone is seriously ill and they turn to a herbalist for help it could be the last decision they make (!)

I did a couple of commentary entries on the "what's the harm?" issue here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/commentary...whats_the_harm

There's a link to a radio show which illustrates the dangers beautifully.

These things are harmless until we ever rely on them. For most people, most of the time they are harmless, but we all have our crunch points in life and if we make a wrong decision based on a false belief that could be it.

[tkingdoll]

Hi seren, welcome to the forum!

First off, I should point out that herbal medicice and alternative medicine are by no means the same. Herbs are in fact the basis for many drugs (prescription or over-the-counter), however often the amount of the herb you would need to ingest to have the same effect as the concentrated synthesised form in a pill is huge. Imagine eating a cricket bat to cure your headache, and you're about there.

Sadly, complementary and alternative medicince practitioners claiming to cure cancer are not the extreme, they are the norm, and as such pose a risk to society. If you are faced with a terminal illness, you will of course try anything - and the 'nicer' the proposed cure, the more attractive it becomes. What would you rather do - take vitamins and homeopathic pills, or go through gruelling surgery and chemotherapy? Unfortunately, many people diagnosed with cancer try the alternative route first, and by the time they realise it isn't work, it's too late to treat by other methods.

Sure, if people want to listen to whale song and play with crystals, that's entirely up to them. But if someone is selling them a 'cure' which has simply not been proven, then that customer is not only being scammed, but risking their health. People have a right not to be conned by false promises. If you go into something knowing all the facts (for example that crystal healing does not stand up to controlled testing) and you still choose to believe it, fine and groovy. But most people do not go and research the claims themselves, they simply take the word of the seller and may not get proper medical treatment because of it.

Regarding people who go to church - yes each to their own, I agree. But what happens when a few religious folk start to push their religious beliefs onto everyone else? What happens when it's your government doing it? For example, in the USA, the government has an agenda for Intelligent Design to be taught in schools and for evolution to be discredited.

[Admin]

Another quick point.

If a herbal remedy has been tested and shown to work, such as St. John's Wort for mild depression, then you won't find Skeptics arguing against its use.

We follow the evidence to find out what's true; we don't oppose things just because it's 'herbal' (or whatever).

A lot of the claims made for herbs and what they can do are false and that's why we oppose them. That's important to understand.

[seren]

Ok, I think you've probably hit the nail on the head with the difference between being a Skeptic (is that the standard spelling? I thought it was a C!) and being sceptical/ a disbeliever.

I was reading your thread on people's perceptions of skepics and I think this is part of the problem. I haven't thought through a coherent response yet, but I will do.

As for the "scamming" arugment; well firstly I agree that plenty of people waste their money. However, potentially herbal medicine isn't a scam, because it has at least some basis in fact. I don't know what herbalists claim they can do, but anyone who's ever smoked tobacco/taken magic mushrooms/eaten too much nutmeg/taken too many juniper berries (that last would be me....itchy kidneys) will tell you plants have an effect on humans [edited to add: a chemical effect]. Which is why I separate it from homeopathy, crystals, whale song etc etc.

But to the crux of my feeling on this. I think much of the success of woo-woo therapies lies in people's belief in them.
I can't prove it.
Alright, I'll change that too I WONDER whether the success of woo-woo therapies lies in people's belief in them. If that is so, then it is of no concern that you or I would feel cheated if we spent £20 on a rock, or whether we think someone else has. What matters is what THEY think they're getting out of it. If they think they're getting peace of mind, maybe they will: a new-age placebo.

As far as claims of healing killer diseases goes, I've no doubt that some people do make outrageous claims and others choose to believe them. Stricter regulation is perhaps in order, and maybe skeptics can help bring that about. It doesn't mean that the whole thing should be scrapped.

Anyway, thank you for your responses. I am now going to think about the public image of skeptics and why us laity (!!) misinterpret it so much.

[seren]

I know its a bit weird to respond to your own posts, but I'm just laughing at my choice of words earlier- "laity"!

It's just what popped into my head, and I didn't mean to suggest anything by it. I just meant those of us new to the...uh...scene?

You guys really do defy description! :)

[tkingdoll]

You're absolutely right, 'skeptic' should be spelled 'sceptic', but I think most of us don't use the UK spelling because it looks too much like 'septic'.

Also, the skeptic community is very much an international one, so it's much easier to go with the 'k' version. I prefer it anyway, it's a nicer looking word.

[vbloke]

If I remember correctly, skeptic is the Greek form and sceptic is Latin form of the word

[Admin]

I think you're right about regulation seren. What Skeptics have been asking for is that alternative remedies, of all varieties, are appraised by NICE (national institute for clinical excellence) so that those that work can be separated from those that don't.

Like I said, if any treatment can be backed up with evidence then you won't find Skeptics opposing its use.

As for selling things to people being justifiable if they believe it works - well I don't agree with that argument.

Is it OK to sell counterfeit merchandise as long as the customer thinks it's real? I think that selling remedies to people that actually have no real benefit is equivalent to selling counterfeit goods. It's based on willful deception.

[Jocky]

Yep

Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skeptic

I'm sad enough to prefer 'skeptic' mainly for this reason, although like teek I think having a single international label is convenient too.

[Admin]

I also use Skeptic because it does look different to the English and it helps to distinguish between being sceptical (doubtful) and being a Skeptic.

[seren]

Well, I'd say the difference is that a fake handbag is definitely fake. But perhaps thinking you're getting better makes you better?

I googled.

Anecdotal, but this is what I mean. Interesting article if you've not already seen it:

During our stay in Beijing, I developed a very sore throat, due, I thought, to the visibly polluted air. This made it difficult to engage in conversations and deliver the speeches that were expected of us. Eventually, I was taken to the outpatient clinic at Beijing Hospital, where, after a very brief examination, was given two medications. The first, labeled in both Chinese and English, was erythromycin, an antibiotic. That seemed reasonable enough for what I thought to be a bronchial infection. The second medication was labeled "Chuanbeiye," with the chief ingredients listed as "snake bile, tendril-leafed fritillary bulb, and almond, etc." Our interpreter assured me that she always relied on the snake bile preparation whenever she had any throat problems, but despite her earnest testimonial, I declined to use it. I relied instead upon the erythromycin, and within a few days, my throat recovered. Offered folk medicine and snake oil, I had chosen scientific Western medicine and was healed by it.

Or so I thought. After our return from China, Paul Kurtz recounted this incident in an article in CSICOP's journal, the Skeptical Inquirer. A few months later, a physician responded in letter to the editor:

All too often bronchial infections are due to viruses and therefore not treatable with antibiotics. Unfortunately, there is such a demand from the lay public to treat everything with antibiotics that it is not unusual for the encumbered physician to prescribe them for infections they know cannot be helped by antibiotics. . . . If this was a viral infection, then the antibiotic and the snake bile were of equal efficacy.
.........
Alternative remedies have appeal to the extent that conventional remedies fail to provide relief. Indeed, the areas where alternative therapies seem to have most appeal is in the very areas where conventional therapies are not able to satisfy the expectations of the consumer, e.g., chronic headaches and backaches, low energy, nausea, arthritis, gastrointestinal complaints, allergies, things which are often caused by or exacerbated by stress or emotional disorders. The alternative therapist, through validating the client's complaints (and often his or her unconventional worldview), providing hope for overcoming the complaints, and giving much personal attention and support, can indirectly serve some of the emotional needs that often underlie many complaints that physicians dismiss.

James Alcock PhD
http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery.../altpsych.html


Further:

The autonomic and neuroendocrine systems of the CNS are recognized as two main pathways over which the mind and body interact. These systems communicate with each other and immune cells (lymphocytes) in a complex feedback loop. The relation of cognitive information (perception, belief, emotion) to lymphocytes is taken as evidence that they "do indeed alter immunity" (Watkins, 1996, p 58).
http://www.members.tripod.com/random_sage/part1c.htm
............
Camille Chatterjee, in the most recent issue of Psychology Today (1999), note a study in which Heike Mahler, PhD., et al., found that watching a video of survivors or of recovery exercises prior to coronary bypass surgery altered patients' appraisal of their healing process; the patients' belief that they were in charge of their recuperation translated into a 'speedy recovery'. The placebo effect is simply the name given to this phenomenon when researchers find improvements in health not claimed by treatment:

. . . it is now clear from PNI [psychoimmunology] that an expectation of recovery can alter subjective feelings of well-being, and result in autonomic activation as well as the production of pituitary hormones. Thus there are specific testable pathways by which expectation (the placebo effect) can alter immunity. -Watkins, 1996, p. 59.

http://www.members.tripod.com/random_sage/part1d.htm


I'm not sure that it IS selling fake goods!

[Physiotherapist]

I have a friend who is a practitioner of herbal medicine and I have to say that he is extremely well trained. He studied biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, pathology, differential diagnosis, phytochemistry, phytomedicine amongst other things.

He is trained to know the actions of all the herbs that he prescribes and he also knows all the drug interactions as well.

Pactitioners who are trained in this way are safe practitioners who know when to treat and when to refer. He is also a member of the National Institute of Medical Herbalists.

[Admin]

Seren,

What they are describing there is the placebo effect. It's still not fully understood but it is pretty much a psychological response, not a physical one.

The placebo effect is invoked by all medical interventions not just alternative ones and that's why it makes so much more sense to use proven remedies rather than merely placebos as they work above the placebo effect.

The placebo effect seems to rely to a large extent on the belief and expectation that an intervention will work but this raises a dilemma when treating people with bogus remedies - to invoke the placebo effect you have to lie to them.

See Professor David Colquhoun's page here: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc...k.html#dilemma

Now placebo effects can make you feel better but they don't actually make you better. The danger here is that someone who's seeing an alternative practitioner may start feeling better because of placebo effects but the feel-good factor of the placebo effect could be masking the symptoms of a worsening condition (!)

Remember, people in general and most alternative medical practitioners are not qualified to make a medical diagnosis; so this is a real, although probably small, danger.

Well, I'd say the difference is that a fake handbag is definitely fake. But perhaps thinking you're getting better makes you better?

No, thinking you're getting better only results in you thinking you're getting better. And that's not always a good thing.