Skeptics - Sometimes Your Friendly Neighborhood Debunkers

A year ago, in a similarly named post, I wrote here about skepticism, and the idea that it is far larger and deeper that the mere process of debunking faulty information. A year later, I found myself trying to debunk.

Some time ago I had the opportunity to write a response to an article that was published in a local monthly newspaper called La Voz, a publication directed toward the Hispanic community in Rochester, NY. That article provided a platform for my first attempt at formal skepticism. The experience was interesting, uncomfortable, and vital.

Here is a link to the relevant edition of the newspaper (March 2012), the article is named "El sistema de salud está fallando, ¿cuáles son nuestras alternativas?" (mind you, it is in Spanish):

http://www.rochesterlavoz.com/current_edition/2012/LaVoz_03_2012_web.pdf

The article's thesis was established on the premise that mainstream medicine has failed, in some respects, and suggests the use of alternative medicines to address these failures.

This is an excerpt from my response:

"Approaches of alternative medicine usually rely on assumptions that have no support from empirical evidence and that are usually un-falsifiable; that is they cannot be shown to work by objective means, and they cannot be shown to not work even if they indeed do not work. It is also worth noting that many of today’s mainstream pharmaceuticals are in fact derived from natural sources, processed to isolate their active ingredients, and then adjusted to control for extraneous effects. Generally calling mainstream drugs “toxic” is both inflammatory and misinforming. Those two characteristics of alternative medicine provide it with virtual immunity from the same scrutiny that the article applies to mainstream medicine; and indeed, the article asks readers to accept the efficacy of these alternative methods as face value, despite promoting critical thinking about mainstream medicine. This is an obvious bias and misinformation regarding the nature of alternative treatment. Not only do these treatment lack any unbiased evidential support, several reports show that the use of such treatments can in fact have serious detrimental consequences.

On a personal note, I find that as a publication that is aimed mainly toward Rochester’s Hispanic community, it is its responsibility to provide this community with balanced and accurate information. To suggest that mainstream medicine has failed, and thus that individuals should engage in unsupported alternative medicine instead, can have real and serious adverse consequences on both their health and their quality of life."

And here is a link to the following edition of the newspaper (April 2012), where my response, and a response to that response, were published:

http://www.rochesterlavoz.com/current_edition/2012/LaVoz_04_2012_web.pdf

Did my response make a difference? If making a difference means changing minds, than perhaps not; but if making a difference means affecting the considerations of how information gets presented, then absolutely. Sometime, such change is enough.

La Voz is available in print for free around the Rochester, NY area, as well as online.

I decided to add my original response as it was sent, which could not be published as-is due to space constraints:

Dear editor of La Voz,

I am writing to you in response to an article in your March La Voz publication, titled “El sistema de salud está fallando, ¿cuáles son nuestras alternativas?” by Yasellyn Diaz (DC). In her article, the author carefully illustrates several current concerns regarding the condition of healthcare in the United States, putting the blame for these concerns on traditional medical approaches, and provides a number of possible alternative treatments to address them.
Let me first state that a large part of the article’s thesis rests on the notion that prevention is far superior to intervention in addressing health concerns, and that individuals, rather than healthcare professionals, are ultimately responsible for their own health. I heartedly agree with these sentiments, and so does mainstream medicine. The importance of a proper diet, exercise, relaxation, and a reduction in unhealthy activities such as drinking and smoking, is both recognized and supported by mainstream medicine, and is not the sole domain of alternative treatments; neither, for that matter, is the recognition of the body’s natural self-healing abilities, which can be explained by a natural immune process that is again well recognized by mainstream medicine.

Several statistics are given in the first portion of the article to provide evidence for the as proof that the health system in United States is failing. I would like to address some of those statistics:

• The article reports that according to the American Cancer Society, 47% of males and 38% of females will develop Cancer during their lives. While technically true, it is important to mention that out of this figure, 37.95% and 26.49%, for males and females respectively, refer to individuals who are 70 years-old or older (1), an age group that has been consistently increasing in number with the development of better medical treatments throughout the last century (2). 
• The article also offers that 60 million individuals suffer from cardiovascular disease in the United States. According to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention, the number of non-hospitalized adults with a primary cardiovascular diagnosis is 27.1 million (3). 
• The article claims that more than a trillion dollars is spent on healthcare in this country. While I did not take the opportunity to validate this figure, as no reference is provided, it is worth noting that according to The Economist Magazine, revenue from the alternative medicine industry is estimated at 60 billion dollars (4), and it is also worth noting that alternative medicine is not susceptible to any FDA approvals, due to the simple fact that such medicines are marketed as dietary supplements, and thus do not need to spend any significant resources on research and development, as do mainstream pharmaceutical companies. 
• As her lead-in statistics, the article uses a well cited source to illustrate the deficits of traditional medicine, stating that prescription drugs cause 225,400 deaths a year. In truth, the source of this information is considered to be quite controversial in medical circles; and received no corroborative work since it was published 12 years ago. Even if accepted at face value, the source itself states that the number of deaths due to adverse effects of medication was 106,000 (5), with the additional figures describing either faulty diagnosis, or faulty administration. This difference is significant, as it moves this alleged cause of death from 3rd to 6th place in the leading causes of death in this country (below accidental injuries) (6). As mentioned previously, however, the credibility of this source has never been corroborated. 

These and the complimentary statistics in the article are meant to provide proof for the failures of the health system, giving additional commentary on the alleged emphasis of health insurers to promote intervention instead of prevention. This, of course, is a fallacy. Even if such allegations are true, the methods of operation that are employed by insurers cannot be used as evidence for the failures of mainstream medicine. It is easy, for example, to forget such things as the promotion of hygiene, the cure for polio, and even the invention mammograms, when bashing the un-preventative nature of mainstream medicine.

As a response to these deficits, the article follows by suggesting that rather than using the “toxic” chemicals that are provided by mainstream medicine, individuals should instead use other forms of treatment. These treatments can all be placed under the umbrella of “alternative medicine”, and include acupuncture, naturopathy, chiropractic, and other “natural” approaches.

Approaches of alternative medicine usually rely on assumptions that have no support from empirical evidence and that are usually un-falsifiable; that is they cannot be shown to work by objective means, and they cannot be shown to not work even if they indeed do not work. It is also worth noting that many of today’s mainstream pharmaceuticals are in fact derived from natural sources, processed to isolate their active ingredients, and then adjusted to control for extraneous effects. Generally calling mainstream drugs “toxic” is both inflammatory and misinforming. Those two characteristics of alternative medicine provide it with virtual immunity from the same scrutiny that the article applies to mainstream medicine; and indeed, the article asks readers to accept the efficacy of these alternative methods as face value, despite promoting critical thinking about mainstream medicine. This is an obvious bias and misinformation regarding the nature of alternative treatment. Not only do these treatment lack any unbiased evidential support, several reports show that the use of such treatments can in fact have serious detrimental consequences (7) (8).

As evident from the biographic section in the same edition of La Voz, the author is a Doctor of Chiropractic. As such, her stance on the nature of mainstream medicine and the efficacy of alternative medicine is understandable. The author has the full right to promote what she finds to be the best path to healthy life. The purpose of the long preceding sections was simply to highlight the factual and logical fallacies that the article introduces. Nevertheless, full disclosure must be made available for readers. Considering that the author provides medical advice in her column, if she chooses to use her honorary title of doctor, her credentials should be noted following her name (DC, as the case may be), as it is generally practiced in printed press. In addition, if the author chooses to continue giving medical advice to readers, the same critical scrutiny should be provided for all aspects of medicine, not only those that the author finds discordant with her own beliefs; good references should be provided, not only regarding mainstream medicine, but also regarding any alternative approaches that she chooses to suggest.

On a personal note, I find that as a publication that is aimed mainly toward Rochester’s Hispanic community, it is its responsibility to provide this community with balanced and accurate information. To suggest that mainstream medicine has failed, and thus that individuals should engage in unsupported alternative medicine instead, can have real and serious adverse consequences on both their health and their quality of life.

Respectfully,

Victor Kogan

(Please see attached PDF file for a copy of the response)

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2012. Atlanta : American Cancer Society, 2012.
2. United States Life Tables 2007. Aria, Elizabeth. 9, Hyattsville : National Center for Health Statistics, 2011, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 59.
3. National Center for Health Statistics. Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2010. Hyattsville : Department of Health and Human Services, 2012.
4. The Economist. There is no alternative. http://www.economist.com. [Online] May 19, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18712290.
5. Is US Health Really the Best in the World? Starfield, Barbara. 4, s.l. : The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2000, The Journal of the Americal Medical Association, Vol. 284, pp. 483-485.
6. National Vital Statistics Report. Murphy, Sherry L, Xu, Jiaquan and Kochanek, Kenneth D. 4, 2012, Vol. 60.
7. Atwood, Kimball C. and Barrett, Stephen. Naturopathic Opposition to Immunization. www.quackwatch.com. [Online] December 2001, 2001. http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/immu.html.
8. Hall, Harriet. Adverse Effects of Chiropractic. www.sciencebasedmedicine.org. [Online] June 2, 2009. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/adverse-effects-of-chiropractic/.