Alternative Therapy Critics and Skeptics
BY ARLENE HARDER, MA, MFT
An analysis of QuackWatch and other critics of alternative medicine help you balance extreme positions on both sides of an issue.
A Site With a Mission
There is possibly no more adamant Internet opposition to any and all non-standard treatment than that found on QuackWatch. This site is operated by Stephen Barrett, MD, who is on a mission to inform people of the dangers of using non-conventional treatment.
While Barrett offers an important service to consumers by questioning outrageous claims for many non-standard therapies and has a great deal of useful information, the site would be much more useful if he didn't dismiss any therapy that doesn't come with the stamp of mainstream medical approval.
For example, on the Special Message for Cancer Patients Seeking Alternative Treatment is this statement: "We strongly recommend that you avoid any [emphasis mine] "alternative" cancer treatment discussed on QuackWatch" If he believes cancer patients should not use these techniques in place of standard treatment, I would agree. However, he sometimes throws the baby out with the bath water. A case in point is the site's opposition to imagery, which I know something about.
Need for Caution in Accepting Opinions That Dismiss Adjunctive Therapies
Because imagery has been one of my specialties for more than twenty years, I've looked at claims (some that are outrageous) for the effects of this technique and believe I have the credentials to comment on Barrett's treatment of this technique.
As I write in various articles within the section on Imagery Techniques to Help You Find and Reach Your Goals, I am very careful not to make claims about imagery's effectiveness. However, if you read the following statement, which appears in an article entitled Questionable Cancer Therapies and is co-written with Victor Herbert, M.D., J.D., if you didn't know anything about the subject, you could get a distorted picture:
"Some people suggest that programs like those of Siegel or Simonton may have positive psychologic [sic] effects that help people to relax and to feel that they are "doing something" positive. Although their methods are physically harmless, they can waste people's time and money and encourage some patients to abandon effective care. They can also cause people to feel ashamed or guilty that some inner inadequacy caused them to develop cancer and is interfering with their recovery."
Here are my observations:
First sentence
While he only says these programs "may" have positive effects, I have never known anyone who's used imagery that does not find it helps them relax and feel they are not completely powerless. I would go further, however, and give an example from my own experience. There was a woman who had eight sessions of chemotherapy and was about to go through her ninth. Each time she had experienced a great deal of nausea and was afraid it would always be bad. But I gave her a special imagery designed just for that purpose and she able to greatly lessen her nausea and came through the last session beautifully. Can I prove it was the imagery that did the trick? No. But that was the only thing that changed from earlier sessions.
Fortunately, if you want confirmation of imagery's effectiveness, there are several studies that have been done on the use of imagery, hypnosis, and meditation for a wide variety of physical problems. You can check out many of these on the Hot Research page on Health Journeys, a site of Belleruth Naparstek, who is a very respected and responsible imagery guide.
As controlled studies continue and new ones refine what we are learning, we will be able to more accurately draw definitive conclusions about the value of imagery.
Second sentence
It may be true that some patients will become so interested in these techniques that they don't use conventional treatment. However, in my experience, I have not known any cancer patients who have felt their learning of this technique was a waste of time or money. Further, I've not known anyone to abandon treatment that was working (or had a fairly good chance of working) just because they learned imagery. Of course, that may be because I strongly discourage people from believing that imagery, in and of itself, will cure their cancer. I do, though, repeat a phrase I believe I learned from Carl Simonton: "You can be committed to the process of imagery without being attached to the outcome."
I also frequently say that, "If you use these techniques because you are afraid to die, you may be disappointed. On the other hand, if you use these techniques because you want to live fully with whatever time you have remaining, you will be successful."
Third sentence
Unfortunately, I have seen evidence of this in a number of cases, particularly when someone combines imagery with the New Age belief that we "cause" whatever happens to us. This is even considered by some to include the idea that we somehow "chose" our parents before we were born, which is the best of all possible ways to blame the victims of child abuse so they could learn something from it.
While acknowledging that some people feel guilty they weren't able to defeat their cancer with imagery or attitude, I wonder what role a person's basic personality plays in creating that guilt. For example, I had a very good friend who used imagery in her fight for recovery from cancer — together with the best clinical treatment she would find. A few days before her death, she told me she wanted to graduate from home hospice, meaning she hoped to become whole and well again by believing she could, since there was no medical treatment possible at that point.
Although I thought her goal extremely unrealistic, it isn't my place to determine what someone else's goal should be. If she needed that hope to get through the coming days, I won't say she was wrong, but I would have preferred we could have talked more about how much her friendship meant to me and how much I would miss her. But what made me feel really sad was her statement that she hadn't wanted visitors to see her when she went into the hospital for the last time — because she felt she had somehow "failed" and couldn't face her friends. Afterward, I spoke with her sister, who said she never knew when to give up and would continue with a project that had long since passed the point of diminishing return. It may be that no matter what technique she used, she would feel guilty if she weren't successful. Giving up and accepting the inevitable is hard to do.
So if Dr. Barrett wants to prevent cancer patients (and others) from using imagery in lieu of standard treatment, he gets no argument from me. However, I think it is not responsible to suggest that using imagery as an adjunctive therapy is wrong. Modern medicine is limited in its ability to make life comfortable when a patient is going through treatment. Warning patients not to use something that has been shown to help thousands of people deal with the side-effects of cancer and improve their quality of life is like saying people shouldn't use automobiles because there are some unsafe drivers.
Fortunately, writers of other articles on QuackWatch are not as dismissive of imagery and recognize the value it plays in quality of life and support of healing. I just wish the primary author would take a similar position. He loses some credibility when he dismisses this technique in the face of evidence for its effectiveness when used appropriately and when the instructor does not promote it as a cure for disease.
Critiques From QuackWatch
Okay, now that I've had my chance to make my case concerning imagery (as well as I can, anyway), let me say that QuackWatch contains some very good articles and is an excellent counter to those who blindly accept the claims of alternative practitioners. If you read the following articles (and those listed under the next subheading), together with other articles in this section, you will more easily be able to evaluate claims of alternative proponents — especially those that suggest you can follow their plan without using conventional treatment. At the very least, you will be less likely to accept at face value the claims of many Internet sites promoting cures for cancer.
If you want to look at both proponents and opponents of these techniques, you would do well to read the following articles, most of which were written by Steven Barrett but others by qualified experts in science and medicine.
Be Wary of "Alternative" Health Methods
How Quackery Sells
How Quackery Harms
25 Ways to Spot Quackery
"Health Freedom"
More Ploys That May Fool You
Why Strong Laws Are Needed to Protect Us
Questionable Cancer Therapies
Do Power Lines Cause Cancer?
Most Cancer Death Rates are Not Increasing
I give Barrett applause for his page of Comments From QuackWatch Visitors that has a Cheers and Jeers feature showing the diversity of opinions held by people and the intense feelings the topic generates.
Skepticism from Other Websites
Alternative Medicine — The Risks of Untested and Unregulated Remedies
Editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine
Report 12 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A-97) of the American Medical Association (AMA)
This full text article is an excellent discussion of the issues of complementary and alternative medicine and represents the medical/scientific literature as of June 1997.
The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine
This is a peer-reviewed medical journal dedicated exclusively to evaluating alternative medicine. However, the journal Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine is also a peer-reviewed journal that also looks at non-conventional therapies, although in a much more sympathetic manner.
National Council Against Health Fraud
The NCAHF is a non-profit, tax-exempt voluntary health agency that focuses its attention upon health fraud, misinformation and quackery as public health problems. It is private, nonpolitical and nonsectarian. The organization is comprised of health professionals, educators, researchers, attorneys and concerned citizens. Among other principles is the belief that scientific process is essential for discovering truths and validating health claims and information, a position with which we also agree.
Health Facts and Fears
When I discovered this journal of the American Council on Science and Health, I was intrigued by the title of a featured article, "Horsefeathers: Acupuncture from a Veterinary Perspective" and I wondered what a veterinarian could say about the topic that would be useful for human patients. Turns out he said a lot, including some interesting observations about the history of acupuncture that will give you a different perspective than that found in articles that accept acupuncture without question. You may have to search a bit to find it, but hope my explanation will perk your interest.
© Copyright 1998, Revised 2005 Arlene Harder, MA, MFT |
