Friday, January 2, 2009

CAM via SHAM: Orac, Salerno in the WSJ 2008-12-25, & UBCNM:

here, I refer to something Orac [of] recently wrote concerning a 2008-12-25 Wall Street Journal [WSJ] article by Salerno [see 001., below], & then I quote from the article itself [see 002., below], and state two basic examples of 'such woo at the university / college level' per the University of Bridgeport's College of Naturopathic Medicine [UBCNM]:

001. as Orac states in "The Woo-Meister Supreme Returns, and He's Brought His Friends" {2009-01-02} :

"speak it, brother Salerno! [...] the WSJ article was that rarest of things for the mainstream media [...] a direct, skeptical, and science-based attack on CAM/IM [that is, Complementary & Alternative Medicine, Integrative Medicine...] Deepak Chopra [is] that Indian physician who demonstrates that a medical training is no protection whatsoever against pseudoscientific and anti-scientific thinking [...] apparently, Chopra is very unhappy about an article by Steve Salerno that the Wall Street Journal published right after Christmas entitled 'The Touch That Doesn't Heal' [...] as I have discussed time and time again, an M.D. after one's name is no guarantee whatsoever that that person has the slightest understanding of the scientific method or what does and does not constitute good science. Indeed, Deepak Chopra is living proof of that, as is Andrew Weil, David Katz, not to mention the horde of physicians signing petitions expressing 'Dissent from Darwin' over evolution on pro-'intelligent design' creationism sites."

Note: ouch! But remember, to paraphrase Orac, 'truthfulness is never insolent.' A basic skeptical rule is stated above, you'll note: an argument's soundness / a claim is based upon 'the thing itself', not merely the authority of its source.

002. Salerno, S. (? ?) {2008-12-25} writes in the WSJ per "The Touch That Doesn't Heal":

"one of the great ironies of modern health care is that many of the august medical centers that once went to great lengths to vilify nontraditional methods as quackery now have brought those regimens in-house [i.e., 'follow the money!'...] hundreds of colleges operating in all 50 states offer coursework in sundry CAM disciplines [i.e., 'follow the money!'...] while bypassing all the customary peer review, controlled studies and other hallmarks of sound medicine [...] 'special commercial interests and irrational, wishful thinking created NCCAM,' writes Wallace Sampson, a medical doctor and director of the National Council Against Health Fraud, on the Web site [...] the National Institutes of Health['s...] National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) [...] despite the $1 billion spent [...] has failed to affirm a single therapy that can withstand the rigors of science [...] 'it is the only entity in the NIH devoted to an ideological [sectarian] approach to health,' writes Dr. Sampson, who has called for the center to be defunded [...] George D. Lundberg, a former editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association [...] once said: 'there's no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data [and sectarian CRAP {my embellishment}]."

Note: Salerno is the the author of "SHAM." He mentions that when rigorous science is applied to CAM / IM...'there's no there there.' Orac, previously, had mentioned Katz: who has called for 'a loosening of definitions concerning what constitutes evidence.' When you can't win within the rules, CHANGE THEM.

003. 'such quackery-woo at the university / college level' per the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine [UBCNM] {currently}:

two great ironies / irrationalities of UBCNM:

the label of nonsectarian upon sectarian / ideological 'medicine';

a college teaching the science-ejected as scientific.

Note: when is the profoundly nonscientific the same as the scientific, and when is the 'sectarian belief-based' the same as 'objective science'?

Post a Comment