It is often a very daunting task for most people to be able to judge if the
therapy that they are being recommended or currently are using has any
scientific validity. The article below discusses a few ways how to detect
quackery. Regrettably, it is even more difficult to ascertain if the method
that seems to be helping you may be working more for psychological than
directly physiological means.
The occurrence of the placebo effect ensures that almost all "revolutionary"
or "space-age" methods, no matter how unproven or apparently outrageous, will
enjoy just enough success to ensure that many therapists or self-appointed
experts will stay in business, write best-selling books on their methods and
never end up being prosecuted for "quackery." It is not beyond the
capabilities of many of you on this list to devise your own postural or pain
management system using safe, jargonised, "cute" and minimalistic methods
that will elicit just enough of a placebo effect to guarantee that you will
make a success of your personal scheme.
Comparative studies in this field, especially using double-blind methods, are
so notoriously difficult to devise and conduct that the odds are that you
will get away with almost any non-invasive therapy that is fairly harmless
for long enough to become a rather wealthy person - provided that you are
well-marketed - yes, that is the key, not the method itself, but how it is
packaged, presented and sold. Naturally, a smattering of impressive-sounding
medical or scientific jargon and guru-speak can work wonders in captivating
the masses! And don't believe what they say, you CAN fool most of the people
most of the time!
--------------------------
<http://www.onmagazine.com/on-mag/magazine/04012001/cs_health_quack.html>
How to Spot a Quack
Wonder Drugs and Miracle Cures? The Net teems with scams, but a doctor shows
how to sniff them out
By Stephen Barrett
Ever heard of magnetic deficiency? Neither had I, not until last year, when
the Florsheim shoe company introduced the fearsome condition on its website.
The site didn't explain magnetic deficiency in much detail; it simply implied
that Florsheim's MagneForce shoes were an excellent remedy for sufferers. The
shoes' powerful magnetic insoles were said to "generate a deep-penetrating
magnetic field which increases circulation; reduces foot, leg and back
fatigue; provides natural pain relief and improved energy level." As
webmaster of Quackwatch.com , I posted a critique of these preposterous
claims. Consequently, a public-interest law firm followed up with a suit for
false advertising (which the shoe company is contesting) and magnetic
deficiency quickly vanished from the Florsheim site.
People often ask me how they can evaluate the quality of health information
on websites. Here are a few diagnostic rules.
RULE 1: Don't assume law-enforcement agencies can protect you from Internet
swindles. In recent years, the Federal Trade Commission has warned the owners
of more than a thousand sites to stop making misleading health claims. But
the FTC does not have the resources necessary to do battle with the huge
number of American swindlers. And the agency alone is powerless to stop sites
that originate in foreign countries.
RULE 2: Be conscious of the source of the information you're reading. Many
sites claim to reflect prevailing medical views - something only experts are
really qualified to judge. Your best bet is to stick with sites sponsored by
recognizable government, professional and academic organizations.
RULE 3: Identify the site's commercial interests. If it features ads for
herbs or dietary supplements, watch out. Some of these products are useful,
but I have never seen them marketed without deception. To make a rational
decision about taking a vitamin, you need to know how much you need, how much
is in your diet and the best way to correct any shortages. But the vast
majority of vitamin sellers advise buying their products without bothering to
find out whether you really need them.
RULE 4: Be wary of anecdotes and testimonials. If someone claims to have
been helped by an unorthodox remedy, ask yourself - if not your doctor -
whether there might be another explanation for the "astonishing" recovery.
Most people recover from most diseases with the passage of time, and
chronic ailments often have symptom-free periods. People who give
testimonials about being cured of cancer, for example, may have undergone
both an effective treatment and a dubious unorthodox one - but may give
credit to the latter. And, of course, some testimonials are complete
fabrications.
RULE 5: Ignore appeals to your vanity. One of quackery's oldest and most
powerful hustles is the appeal to "think for yourself" instead of
"following the herd" - the herd being the scientific community.
RULE 6: It's best to avoid sites that promote "alternative methods." The
word alternative is a slogan, not a descriptor for a definable group of
methods. Genuine alternatives are those that have met science-based criteria
for safety and effectiveness.
Spotting blatantly quacky information is easy if you know what to look for.
It is more difficult to judge the quality of mainstream medical information -
partly because many valuable sites also link to sites that are full of
misleading advice. Experts can sort this out, but hiring them would be so
expensive that no financial incentive exists to do so.
In the meantime, Quackwatch lists more than 150 sites that my consultants
and I consider trustworthy. Among the very best are those of the American
Academy of Family Physicians , the American Academy of Pediatrics and the
home edition of the Merck Manual.
[Mel Siff: Periodically visit this website for up to date discussion on
quackery in medicine, physical therapy, body alignment and chiropractic:
http://www.quackwatch.com
Yes, I am well aware that some of the information may be contradicted by some
studies, but it still offers a stimulating critical view of therapies that
often have little scientific or clinical support. ]
Finally, never forget one of health care's most important rules: it's never
wrong to ask questions. Anyone who makes you think otherwise may well be a
quack.
---------------------
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/
|
