Natural Health

Modern Book Burning: Banning Natural Medicine in Educational Institutions

February 12, 2012 by admin in Alternative Medicine, Featured with 18 Comments

Book burners are still around, though they take a different approach from their medieval ancestors. The new methods are a bit subtler. They even claim to be based on science.

But what kind of science objects to teaching subjects that people want to study? Surely, if a scientist is sure of research’s validity, there would be no concern about teaching topics that they don’t consider to be scientific.

That, though, appears not to be the case. The book burners of today now call for banning of certain topics in universities. They’re trying to ban natural medicine.

An Australian group of doctors and modern medical researchers call themselves Friends of Science in Medicine. They have set themselves up as the arbiters of what may or may not be taught, and what modes of treatment insurance companies may cover. To this end, they are calling for the end of alternative medicine training in universities.

Their attacks include any and all alternatives: traditional Chinese medicine, homeopathy, chiropractic, naturopathic, and aromatherapy. What all of these therapies have in common is that they’re a threat to the chosen modality of the FOSM: often deadly conventional medicine based on Big Pharma’s toxic drugs and invasive treatments.

If they were truly confident in their field, it’s hard to believe that they’d have the slightest concern about the teaching of alternatives. Instead, they’re using jackbooted methods in an attempt to destroy the competition.

Defend Freedom of Health Choice

Sadly, it’s necessary to defend freedom of health choice against these attackers. Rachel McDonald has started a petition called Protect University Courses in CAM. She’s looking for signatures on a petition to send a letter asking the Vice-Chancellors of Australian Universities to maintain their support for complementary and alternative healthcare training. The petition’s text reads:

University education currently provides one important source of training for Complementary and Alternative Medicine practitioners. These courses are renowned for their ability to create research literate practitioners who are able to provide high quality evidence-based therapies to the public and therefore work effectively in the health field. They also encourage students with an interest in research to continue along that path, adding a unique viewpoint to the scientific community and enhancing the development of the knowledge base.

In addition, University education adds to the ability of Complementary and Alternative Medicine to continue its vital role in contributing to the improvement of local and global health outcomes in an integrated manner.

While we highly respect the scientific abilities of the leading members of Friends of Science in Medicine and their right to contribute to healthy debate, we feel they are misinformed about the nature of university studies in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. As such, we are concerned at their request to disband these courses. We ask that the Vice-Chancellors make a public statement pledging to protect the high quality and science based courses in Complementary and Alternative Medicine that they currently offer.

As she points out in her supporting statement, the universities not only provide alternative practitioners, they also provide the training needed for them to do evidence-based research in different health modalities. Clearly, the goal of FOSM is to destroy any potential for any health care system other than their own to survive.

The petition asks that Australia’s university vice chancellors issue a statement supporting CAM courses. Thus far, they’ve received statements from academics supporting them, but the vice chancellors have remained silent.

Please, sign the Protect University Courses in CAM petition!

If FOSM manages to shut down alternative medicine training in universities, it would leave the public no options but their toxic treatments. They have a near-monopoly now. Don’t let them make it absolute!

Tagged alternative medicine, big pharma, book burning, conventional medicine, fosm, friends of science in medicine, Homeopathy, modern medicine, natural medicine, pharmaceutical drugs, pharmaceuticals, protect university courses in cam, traditional chinese medicine

http://www.facebook.com/people/Robin-Thomas/1797454054 Robin Thomas

Our Government and their best buddies in Corporate Elite world, have a dangerous case of Münchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP or MBP) That is a big label for a pattern of behavior in which a caregiver, let’s say ‘the Government,Inc’ Obama Health Care or pharma-Cartels deliberately exaggerates, fabricates, and/or induces physical, psychological, behavioral, and/or mental health problems (like antidepressant drug abuse, GMO’s, Chemtrails, Aspartame, High Fructose, Vaccines, public schools) in those who are in their care. (anybody with a S.S.# and a birth certificate or who has a benefit card) [1] With deception at its core, this behavior is an elusive, potentially lethal, and frequently misunderstood form of child abuse[2] or medical neglect[3] that has been difficult to define, detect and confirm. Add to it that they run a psychopathic corporate structure and are probably themselves, psychopathic, we the people are in serious jeopardy. Save your books, covet them and protect them and teach everyone you know some small part of the old and very real ways. Someday that knowledge will be able to return to the libraries of enlightenment.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Gaylord/1502931374 Steven Gaylord

These atrocities commited towards education makes sense when the global elite control most universities; as well as media.
Anonymous

Look at Whitney Houston! Another victim of Big Pharma. Had she sought alternative treatments for her distress, she might still be around.

http://www.facebook.com/skupe59 Suzanne Kupersmith Stapler

So many others could have been the “big boys and girls” too like Heath Ledger, Farrah, Michael Jackson, etc. Thanks goodness for people who do the right things like Gwyneth Paltrow, Suzanne Somers, etc.

http://twitter.com/VaccineRisks Vaccine Risks

Development is moving in an entirely wrong direction. Universities with faculties and their institutes have lost potential democratic apparatus for control because they have employed leaders with strong commercial interests.
This has opened for increased bias and corruption at the expense of professional, ethical priorities.
http://twitter.com/jonni jonni

Scientific body decides not to teach practices that are not supported by scientific evidence.

Why is this an issue?

Why are the authors of the article so up-in-arms about it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine
[Alternative medicine] is based on historical or cultural traditions, rather than on scientific evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Evidence
Homeopathy’s efficacy is unsupported by the collective weight of modern scientific research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#Evidence_basis
Evidence-based guidelines are supported by one end of an ideological continuum among chiropractors; the other end employs antiscientific reasoning and makes unsubstantiated claims, that is called ethically suspect when they let practitioners maintain their beliefs to patients’ detriment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturopathy
Naturopathy treatments range from standard evidence-based treatments, to homeopathy and other practices sometimes characterized as pseudoscience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatherapy#Efficacy
The consensus among most medical professionals is that while some aromas have demonstrated effects on mood and relaxation and may have related benefits for patients, there is currently insufficient evidence to support the claims made for aromatherapy.

Anonymous

You cite Wikipedia as an authority?!

I suppose you believe that history, philosophy, and religions shouldn’t be taught, either, because they aren’t scientific.

If you think that medical doctors are scientists, you’re sadly mistaken. Most of what’s published in medical journals is junk science supported by Big Pharma – and the journals themselves are largely bought out by Big Pharma.

http://twitter.com/jonni jonni

Heidi said: “You cite Wikipedia as an authority?!”

Your usage of “?!” implies that you do not value Wikipedia as an authority. Please can you explain the reasoning behind this, and perhaps recommend an alternative that does not have the failings you consider Wikipedia to?

–

Heidi said: “I suppose you believe that history, philosophy, and religions shouldn’t be taught, either, because they aren’t scientific.”

I said “Scientific body decides not to teach practices that are not supported by scientific evidence.” You have exaggerated this position, and then criticised the exaggeration. Bad form!

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.)

–

Heidi said: “If you think that medical doctors are scientists, you’re sadly mistaken.”

Please can you explain the reasoning behind this assertion?

–

Heidi said: “Most of what’s published in medical journals is junk science supported by Big Pharma – and the journals themselves are largely bought out by Big Pharma.”

The first bit is a pretty big and bold claim. What evidence is there to back it up?

I can appreciate that drug companies who research and test their own treatments have an incentive for them to be presented in a favourable light.

However, the same can be said for proponents of ‘natural’ medicine, can it not?

And, as far as I’m aware, people are successfully treated every day for thousands of conditions using drugs from ‘big pharma’, so all their claims can’t be entirely false. If no-one ever got better, people would start to notice.

I do not doubt that a few ‘natural’ medicine techniques are effective.

However, considering that these techniques were developed long before we understood how the human body works – and that we now know about the placebo effect and cognitive biases that can lead to someone mistaking a natural recovery for the results of a treatment – the probability that ‘natural’ medicine techniques are as, or more, effective than modern treatments is negligible.

–

If anyone would like to have a go at answering my original questions, please do:

Why is this an issue?

Why are the authors of the article so up-in-arms about it?

Anonymous

No implication of Wikipedia as noncredible. It isn’t.

Your position wasn’t exaggerated. The body you speak of is a self-selected group that claimed alternative medicines are not scientific and, therefore, should not be taught. There is no difference between that and suggesting that anything shouldn’t be taught because it isn’t, in the eyes of the claimant, scientific. There was no straw man raised – only an analog of exactly the same argument used to ban the teaching alternative medicine.

Your presumption that I don’t know what a straw man is – presumptuous.

Reasoning behind the fact that doctors aren’t scientists? They aren’t trained as scientists. They are crammed full of a specific set of details that are presented to them as facts. That isn’t science – has nothing to do with it.

If you don’t realize that most of what’s published in medical journals is garbage then you haven’t been paying attention.

No, most people are not effectively treated every day with Big Pharma’s poisons. They do far more harm than good. If you believe otherwise, go ahead and put yourselves at their mercy: You’ll likely need some.

Do you actually believe that modern medicine understands how the body works? That’s idea is nothing but the hubris of modern medicine.

The presumption of a group of people whose interest lies in promoting a particular mode of medicine presuming to decide what may or may not be taught is abhorrent. It’s no better than book burning.

http://twitter.com/jonni jonni

Heidi wrote: “No implication of Wikipedia as noncredible. It isn’t.”

Then what was the ‘?!’ all about?

–

Heidi wrote: “Your position wasn’t exaggerated. The body you speak of is a self-selected group that claimed alternative medicines are not scientific and, therefore, should not be taught. There is no difference between that and suggesting that anything shouldn’t be taught because it isn’t, in the eyes of the claimant, scientific. There was no straw man raised – only an analog of exactly the same argument used to ban the teaching alternative medicine.”

You said that I think philosophy, history and religion shouldn’t be taught. That’s incorrect. Hence, you exaggerated my position.

To train as a doctor is to learn techniques that help people stay healthy. It’s important that these techniques are effective, and their efficacy can be measured with scientific studies.

The efficacy of the majority of ‘natural’ medicines is not supported by scientific evidence. Therefore, there is no benefit to a doctor to learn them – and offering them to a patient would be unethical because there is no proof that they work.

–

Heidi wrote: “Your presumption that I don’t know what a straw man is – presumptuous.”

Presumptions do tend to be presumptuous, yes Better to presume that you don’t, than presume you do and risk being misunderstood. No offense was intended.

–

Heidi wrote: “Reasoning behind the fact that doctors aren’t scientists? They aren’t trained as scientists. They are crammed full of a specific set of details that are presented to them as facts. That isn’t science – has nothing to do with it.”

I think you’re failing to recognise the distinction between practicing doctors and research doctors.

Practicing doctors don’t necessarily need to apply the scientific method themselves, like you say, they just need to learn what works (although there probably is an element of trial and error over the course of their career).

Research doctors are very much scientists. They apply the scientific method to treatments to test their effectiveness.

–

Heidi wrote: “If you don’t realize that most of what’s published in medical journals is garbage then you haven’t been paying attention. ”

I think you might be avoiding answering my question, which was “What evidence is there to back [this] up?”.

I haven’t been paying attention to medical journals, no. And as I said, I’m sure some drug companies do distort some trials because it’s in their interest to do so.

But to dismiss ‘most’ research published in medical journals as ‘garbage’ is a pretty big claim, and I will again ask: how did you come to this conclusion? Can you cite any evidence of this?

–

Heidi wrote: “No, most people are not effectively treated every day with Big Pharma’s poisons. They do far more harm than good. If you believe otherwise, go ahead and put yourselves at their mercy: You’ll likely need some.”

Are you talking about specific, controversial treatments – such as those for cancer where some harm is done in treatment – or conventional medicine as a whole?

I can understand that for some terminal illnesses, drastic times call for drastic measures, and it’s not quite clear just how effective some treatments are.

But if you’re dismissing all modern medicine as ‘poison’ (are you?), then I again refer you to the incontrovertible evidence that millions of people recover from illnesses every day that would have almost certainly killed them a couple of hundred years ago – all thanks to progress in modern medicine.

–

Heidi wrote: “Do you actually believe that modern medicine understands how the body works? That’s idea is nothing but the hubris of modern medicine.”

Not comprehensively, but enough to decisively treat numerous previously life-threatening illnesses.

Also, it doesn’t matter whether of not you understand how something works, as long as you can prove that it does work.

–

Heidi wrote: “The presumption of a group of people whose interest lies in promoting a particular mode of medicine presuming to decide what may or may not be taught is abhorrent. It’s no better than book burning.”

They are doctors. Their interest lies in promoting medicine that actually works. They are using very clear, very transparent, criteria – they want to promote the teaching and practice of treatments that have been scientifically proved to be effective.

Why are you so desperate for treatments that are not scientifically proven to work to be taught to doctors?

Their job is to keep people healthy – so why not only teach them treatments that have been proved to do that?
Anonymous

No, I didn’t say what I believe you think. I said what your logic implies.

No, doctors don’t learn how to keep people healthy! They learn a specific range of methods – usually chemical and surgical – to treat illness. They cure nothing. They suppress symptoms.

There is no distinction between practicing doctors and research doctors. The training is the same – and it isn’t science. Besides, most of the doctors in that group trying to suppress alternative medicine are practicing, not research.

You’re completely wrong about whether alternative medicines are supported by science – but you don’t realize that because you don’t read the studies, as you’ve admitted. You don’t know what they do or don’t say. All you know is what the people trying to cram their particular version of medicine down everyone’s throats want you to believe.

The fact is that some of the medical journals are now admitting that most of what they publish is rubbish. And people who were once involved with them, but have left – such as Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most prestigious – make quite clear is the case. The research is mostly bad because of who pays for it and the journals themselves are corrupt because the biggest part of their income is from Big Pharma.

I’m talking about nearly all medical treatments. Most are ineffective other than for short term suppression of symptoms, most cause serious adverse effects, and most cause serious long term harms not generally considered among the adverse effects.

You believe that the modern medical system works. That’s naive. They’ve done almost nothing for victims of cancer other than making them worse and making the rest of their lives pure misery. They take credit for extending life, when the reality is that it’s been adequate food, healthier environment, decent sanitation, and clean water that’s made the difference. They apply treatments that cause chronic disease and they push their treatments on people before knowing that they’re needed – like giving antibiotics for viral illnesses; cutting the umbilical cord as soon as possible, thus resulting in poorer health and more jaundice in babies; routinely giving children intraveinous liquids with high fevers, killing 3 out of 100; scheduling births for their own convenience; doing back surgeries that give no benefit and cause horrific iatrogenic injuries; and far more. They do these things because it’s profitable. None of it is done for the benefit of patients and none is backed by real science. It is, in fact, real science that has shown all of these treatments to be harmful and useless – yet they continue to do them. Modern medicine pretends to be science based. It’s anything but that.

Modern medicine is good at one thing – convincing the naive that it works. Their greatest talent is PR and suppression of alternatives.
http://twitter.com/jonni jonni

OK Heidi.

I think it’s fair to say that we are in disagreement!

Take care,

Jonni

Anonymous

Wikipedia is pretty accurate for most things, most of the time. Bad practice, but objections are mostly snobbery in my opinion.

I think the objection is due to the way academic accreditation generally lends credibility to a subject which has no scientific backing (which has an impact on the delivery of proper medicine), rather than an attempt to stamp out the competition.

Anonymous

By your logic, the teaching of any philosophy other than a “correct” one is lending credence to it.

If the teaching of alternative medicine is somehow harmful to the practice of mainstream medicine, then it’s because mainstream medicine doesn’t compare well. If mainstream medicine needs the sort of protection this group is after, then mainstream medicine has – and is – a problem.

ROFLCOPTERY

Not my logic, it really doesn’t bother me if it’s taught or not, if people want to pay to study this nonsense that’s their concern.

As I said, it’s not as though it’s directly harmful to mainstream medicine, it’s probably because it could be seen that the subject is being lent legitimacy by being taught at a higher education establishment, legitimacy that really shouldn’t be there.

http://www.facebook.com/ellendiann Ellen Diann Messer

People need to rid themselves of these quacks like the AMA and FOSM by NOT buying their products/drugs and services.
http://www.facebook.com/ellendiann Ellen Diann Messer

Science proves nothing. How many times do they have to be wrong to figure this out. Their medicine is void of common sense. For example, they use toxic potions for medicine? They don’t learn anything about nutrition and they say they have science to back them up. OK, then, where are the cures? Where are the answers? Science has NONE and that is why they hate the alternative medicine because IT WORKS and is taking away their business as it should be. I don’t patronize these AMA quacks. I learned by reading the books of the good doctors who turned away from their evil toxic potion pushing (drug pushers) and used the cures that work. Natural things that help the body instead of poisoning the body. DUH.. ….
Pingback: Modern Book Burning: Banning Natural Med « Lip Diva