• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Medical 'Baloney Detection Kit'

TriangleMan

Graduate Poster
TriangleMan
Joined
Mar 17, 2004
Messages
1,526
Location
Qatar
My workplace has a committee that invites people to give presentations at lunch on health issues. Some of them have been pretty good (nutritionist discussing food pyramid requirements, spokesperson from a diabetes center, trainer discussing exercise regimens) but others have not (naturopath who claimed flu vaccines cause disease, a reflexologist, a homeopath). I spoke to the head of the committee about my concerns on inviting alternative practitioners without doing some research to see if their claims are legitimate.

Long story short – I’m doing the next presentation. It will be on ‘using critical thinking for health information’.

SInce I don't have a medical background my focus will be on general critical thinking tools that people can use when evaluating health care, as well as pointing out issues like not relying on anecdotes (could be placebo effect) when examining health information. I’m not going to discuss or debunk any specific CAM, there’s too many of them anyway. I just want to give people information that could allow them to evaluate medical information for themselves. Hopefully they’ll use them to sort out what is bunk.

As part of the discussion I figured I would develop a medical ‘baloney detection kit’ that my co-workers could use to evaluate health-care options and point out ones that should merit more investigation before a person pays $$$ for the treatment. If anyone can help out with this I’d appreciate it.

Here’s what I’ve got so far:

If you see at least two or three of the following then do further investigation:

- tries to sell you something directly (book, supplements .etc)
- claims treatment works on a number of unrelated illnesses
- uses any of the following words: quantum, bioelectric, energy, aura, toxins, bioenergy, open mind
- claims to ‘strengthen’ or ‘enhance’ the immune system
- claims or implies that something being ‘natural’ automatically makes it better than a manufactured treatment
- uses infomercials to advertise products
- claims most diseases are due to poor nutrition
- uses lots of testimonials from individuals in their promotion
- overemphasis on the qualifications of the seller of the treatment (listing their degrees, years of experience, etc. as a selling point)
- claims to cure serious illnesses without any side effects
- claims that the treatment has been used for ‘centuries’
- you saw the claim in an email

Definitely be suspicious of the following:

- mentions conspiracy or persecution by government/AMA/pharmaceutical companies to ‘suppress’ knowledge of the treatment
- mentions that pharmaceuticals are only concerned about profits (and want you to stay sick), yet the claimant is also trying to sell you something
- claims to cure cancer or other severe illnesses such as Alzheimer’s or HIV/AIDS
 
You might want to add overuse of the word "chemical", especially if they don't name the chemicals.

Any sort of magic process done to water, other than turning it into an aqueous solution of something beneficial.

Another warning sign: They hiss and shrink away at the mention of "double-blind control studies."
 
Be sure to point out not to be TOO skeptical, just check out this site: http://www.ismrm.org/

Now, they mention "Magnetic" and "Resonance" and the site screams 'woo' because of this. However, it's just a site about MRI!

Good points to make:
Alternative medicine is medicine rejected by science
Radiation was an alternative back when it was discovered (look up the date)
Point out some of the funnier alternatives (look, this guy did this to his colon...)
 
Another one for your detection kit:
- states that "it's so effective it's patented" or otherwise implies that having a patent means that it works
 
- claims most diseases are due to poor nutrition
Click to expand...

You could modify this one to be something like 'Claims a single unifying cause as the source of most diseases, such as poor nutrition, energy out of balance etc'
 
Claims of unrecognised or obscure parasites causing multiple subtle disorders.

Claims that mercury in dental work, vaccines, or environment (or any other specific, mysterious substance) underlie assorted disorders.

Claims that only years of tireless research by this one dedicated healer (who was ridiculed/discouraged by his shortsighted/bought-off peers) has disclosed this danger/harm/treatment.

Dave
 
The guidelines published by the Arthritis Foundation and cited by the Committee on Aging for spotting the unscrupulous promoter:

  1. He may offer a "special" or "secret" formula or device for "curing" arthritis.
  2. He advertises. He uses "case stories" and testimonials from satisfied customers.
  3. He may promise (or imply) a quick or easy cure.
  4. He may claim to know the cause of arthritis and talk about "cleansing" your body" of "poisons" and "pepping up" your health. He may say surgery, X-rays and drugs prescribed by a physician are unnecessary.
  5. He may accuse the "medical establishment" of deliberately thwarting progress, or of persecuting him...but he doesn't allow his method to be tested in tried and proven ways.
(Keith E. Stanovich, "How to think straight about psychology")

Substitute "arthritis" with any ailment.
 
Be sure to explain the points in your 'detection kit' well. Why is it important that it stand up to double blind, placebo control trials?
Why is something that has been around for centuries not necessarily better that newer scientifically tested treatments (I remember a long argument about that with a friend, concerning chinese medicine..)

For instance: The natural world is full of poisonous and toxic substances. Science helps us both to find what is good for us and what can make us sick. Go for a hike in the mountains and drink from a pure stream that's untouched by man, and you might end up with a case of beaver fever. "Process" that water with a high quality filter, and you'll have a much better time.
The question of what exatly is 'natural' is a good one too.

Those who are just leaning towards woo because they haven't got the facts in will apreciate a good rebutal of all of these fallacious arguments. At least I hope they will.
 
Roboramma said:
you might end up with a case of beaver fever.
Click to expand...

I'm curious- would you explain what 'beaver fever' is? There's no way I'm going to type that into Google here at work.
 
Thanks for all of your input (and links) everyone!
Be sure to point out not to be TOO skeptical
Click to expand...
I won't. This presentation, and the checklist, is about "investigate this treatment further before you use it" rather than a dismissive "this is woo and stay away from it". My main goal is to try to give my co-workers a brief Critical Thinking 101 but that message won't get through if people think their favourite treatment is being attacked - that's why I'm deliberately not mentioning any specific sCAM and emphazing further investigation if the health info looks suspicious. With any luck they'll then look into these things on their own. At the very least maybe the seeds of doubt will be planted.

I'm also using old ads from Victorian times up to the 1930s for some humour. Arsenic, comet pills, syrups that cure everything, it's great stuff. It will also help show that while we laugh at these things now back then these were taken seriously by many people.
Refer them to Quackwatch and other websites.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
Roboramma said:
Be sure to explain the points in your 'detection kit' well. Why is it important that it stand up to double blind, placebo control trials?
Click to expand...
The kit is for the end of the presentation, I will be discussing issues like the placebo effect, double-blind studies and so forth during the presentation. It is important to show why we can't rely on testimonials and anecdotes for health information, espcecially since that is a main source of information for people (word-of-mouth, random emails, etc.).
 
Here's an updated 'kit':

If you see at least two or three of the following then do further investigation:

- tries to sell you something directly (book, supplements .etc)
- claims treatment works on a number of unrelated illnesses
- uses any of the following words: quantum, bioelectric, energy, aura, toxins, bioenergy, open mind, magnetism
- claims to ‘strengthen’ or ‘enhance’ the immune system
- claims or implies that something being ‘natural’ automatically makes it better than a manufactured treatment
- uses infomercials to advertise products
- implies that the treatment works because it is patented or has a patent pending
- claims a single unifying cause as the source of most diseases (poor nutrition, metal/mercury concentrations, etc.)
- uses lots of testimonials from individuals in their promotion
- overemphasis on the qualifications of the seller of the treatment (listing their degrees, years of experience, etc. as a selling point)
- lots of mention of ‘chemicals’ without actually naming the chemicals
- claims to cure serious illnesses without any side effects
- claims that unseen parasites are the cause of numerous diseases
- claims that the treatment has been used for ‘centuries’
- you saw the claim in an email

Definitely be suspicious of the following:

- mentions conspiracy or persecution by government/AMA/pharmaceutical companies to ‘suppress’ knowledge of the treatment
- mentions that pharmaceuticals are only concerned about profits (and want you to stay sick), yet the claimant is also trying to sell you something
- claims to cure cancer or other severe illnesses such as Alzheimer’s or HIV/AIDS
- claims that only this practitioner can offer the treatment. It is not available from anyone else.
- attempts to convince you to not undergo any conventional treatment (surgery, X-rays, drugs, etc.)
 
TriangleMan said:
Here's an updated 'kit':

- uses any of the following words: quantum, bioelectric, energy, aura, toxins, bioenergy, open mind, magnetism
Click to expand...

Remember to point out that these are viable and valid scientific terms, but the true definition of them is often unclear to the layman, never mind the Woos! The use of them imbues the product with both an "aura" (sorry!) of scientific respectability and a mysterious/magical quality.
The Woos liberally misappropriate these terms in totally the wrong context - so "energy" for them is actually an abstract concept and nothing to do with energy as we know it.
Rather bizarrely, although science can detect the charge and the spin on a single electron, it cannot detect any of these nebulous "energies".
 
TriangleMan said:
Here's an updated 'kit':
- claims that the treatment has been used for ‘centuries’
Click to expand...

It may be worth pointing out that any ancient "therapies" which are still in use today are only in use because they are relatively harmless and have persisted through a form of "natural deselection" of the nasty ones.
Dangerous practices like bleeding and leeching for example were eventually realised to be more likely to kill than cure - something that was obvious to any keen observer - no double blind randomised controlled trials necessary.
Similarly, most Chinese emperors died from heavy metal poisoning administered by their physicians. Today, only relatively "harmless" interventions like acupuncture remain. (Deadly herbal remedies are still produced, but are fortunately rare.)

You don't see people today promoting bleeding as a therapy on the basis that "it was used for centuries".
 
Let's not forget that treatment in yonder days was rarely solely just one kind of treatment.

Astrology was mixed with prayers to gods. Herbal concoctions should be taken under the full moon whilst chanting spells. The herbs themselves were also collected under magical rites.

To claim "ancient" history is to distory history.
 
Alkatran said:
Radiation was an alternative back when it was discovered (look up the date)[/B]
Click to expand...

The is a complicated example as radiation is a main stream therapy now, but it's oncological use is far removed from it's initial 'woo' use.

O.
:)
 
The Museum of Questionable Medical Devices has an online collection of some of them. If you have access to computer and projector for your talk, it could add some entertainment, while getting the point across that this struggle has a long history...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom