Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:01
A Straits Times campaign against alternative therapies?
In Guest Writers, Main Stories • 893 views • 56 Comments
Richard Seah / Guest Writer
Why is The Straits Times waging a vociferous campaign against alternative therapies for autism – and singling out biomedical treatment?
On its own, an ST article questioning alternative and complementary therapies is nothing unusual. But three articles within a space of 10 days does seem, to use a word from one of the articles, “bizarre”.
Moreover, two of those articles were written by the same journalist, Radha Basu, and both articles essentially said the same things. Is the ST so short of articles that it needs to repeat itself so soon? Even after another senior writer, Dr Andy Ho, has already affirmed several of the points initially raised?
At the same time, at least two letters to the ST Forum page commenting on those articles – one by me and one by my friend John Yeo, who is a biomedical practitioner with an MSc in Exercise and Nutrition (see below) – have been rejected for publication. Because, you know, “The Straits Times receives an average of 70 letters a day….”
If healthcare professionals who have been aggressively attacked are not given the right to respond, and present their case, who will be?
This “right of reply” is something that the PAP government makes a big issue about whenever it gets criticised by the foreign media. Yet our own media does not grant similar right of reply to our own citizens.
Something strange – bizarre – is going on. Let’s take a closer look at those articles.
____________
On 11 August, Radha Basu wrote an article titled Autism ‘cures’: helpful or harmful?
The article is peppered with emotive words. She describes chelation therapy as “bewildering” and quotes a US report that calls it “voodoo”.
[Editor’s note: Chelation - a method of removing certain heavy metals from the bloodstream, used esp. in treating lead or mercury poisoning.]
The article goes on to highlight “reports of at least one botched-up chelation-related death in the US.” All this makes it sound as if chelation is highly dangerous, when, in fact, the single case of death was not due to chelation. Rather, it was due to the procedure being “botched up”.
The pertinent background, omitted from the ST report, is that in this instance, the doctor had administered the drug via direct injection when it should have been given via a drip, slowly over two to three hours.
Moreover, the drug used in this case was EDTA, which is rarely used in biomedical treatment. The most commonly used drug is DMSA, which is an oral / transdermal drug approved by the US FDA for treating acute lead poisoning.
DMSA has also been found to be effective for treating mercury and other heavy metal poisoning. And since it has been scientifically proven that many autistic children have higher levels of mercury in the body, using DMSA to remove mercury from autistic children is not unjustified.
But by discussing DMSA and then mentioning a case of death (indirectly) involving EDTA, Ms Basu made it seem as if all chelation is dangerous. This is irresponsible reporting. It is fear-mongering.
Ms Basu further describes two other biomedical treatments – hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) and neurofeedback – as “bizarre”.
She fails to mention that HBOT has been medically used for decades and is offered by many hospitals around the world, including Tan Tock Seng Hospital and Singapore General Hospital. She also fails to mention that HBOT has been scientifically proven to be safe and effective for the treatment of various physical as well as neurological conditions.
Plus, she fails to mention that soft chamber HBOT (using mild pressure and without pure oxygen – the type used for autism treatment here) is approved by the FDA as a Class IIa medical device for home use in the US.
As for neurofeedback, it is but a modern, enhanced version of biofeedback. And biofeedback itself has been around since the 1950s and has also considerable scientific backing. In fact, biofeedback is endorsed by prestigious mainstream medical institutions including The Mayo Clinic.
It is indeed strange (bizarre) that Ms Basu should describe these two therapies as bizarre.
Throughout, Ms Basu asserts that the various alternative treatments for autism – including nutritional therapy, CFGF (casein free, gluten free) diet, HBOT, etc – are unscientific, ineffective and dangerous.
These assertions are simply NOT TRUE. A simple search on the medical database PubMed will throw up a good number of peer-reviewed and published scientific studies affirming both the safety and efficacy of the various treatments.
Ms Basu goes on to highlight the “high costs” of alternative treatment for autism, ignoring the fact that conventional autism therapy often costs even more money!
As for parents who said their children have benefited from alternative treatment, Ms Basu casts a strong doubt with her own comment, “For now, at least.”
Such a comment is utterly insensitive and offensive. If you were the mother interviewed, whose autistic child had shown improvements, how does it feel to have the journalist proclaim to over a million readers that the improvements are only “for now”?
__________
On August 16, ST followed up with a commentary by Dr Andy Ho, who is trained as a medical doctor, titled Autism: Desperately seeking a cure.
Except for calling alternative and biomedical practitioners “quacks”, Dr Ho was at least more factual and less emotive in his writing.
But he, too, resorts to scare mongering. For example, he cites the use of two drugs, Avandia and Actos, which he describes as “potentially deadly”. In reality, these drugs – in fact, drugs in general – are hardly ever used by alternative practitioners.
Dr Ho offers a simplistic – to the point of being unscientific – explanation as to why autistic kids sometimes get better after alternative treatment. He writes:
“Sometimes, fad therapies seem to work because autism, like many other disorders, displays a natural pattern: Symptoms get worse at times and diminish at others. When symptoms get really bad, parents hunt for magic cures; and when the symptoms abate naturally afterwards, the improvement is attributed to the new ‘cure’. Parents want to believe.”
Such an explanation totally ignores cases where symptoms had persisted for years and then subsided, or went away completely, following alternative treatment. It also ignores – and belittles – the scientific literature that supports the effectiveness of such treatments.
Dr Ho’s comment is that parents “want to believe”.
My comment is that doctors and other skeptics like him “don’t want to believe”.
_______
Finally, on August 20, the ST published a second article by Radha Basu titled Saving people from peddlers of false hope. As mentioned earlier, the article essentially makes the same points as her earlier article, except that it no longer specifically mentions biomedical treatment.
She ends of by calling for penalties against alternative practitioners who make “false claims”.
What about journalists who make equally false claims about treatments being unscientific and ineffective, without checking out the research that is readily available?
Shouldn’t they, too, be penalised?
The above article reflects the author’s personal views.
———-
About the author:
Richard Seah used to be journalist with Business Times 1980-89 and then self-published a newsletter on natural health, called The Good Life between 1989-96. He is now a free lance writer and web-builder and he work closely with several alternative / complementary health practitioners, including Mr John Yeo, nutritionist of The Authism Recovery Centre – hence his interest in and familiarity with the subject of autism treatment.
About John Yeo
John Yeo is a nutritionist, biomedical practitioner and parent of an autistic teenage daughter.
———–
Related posts:
56 Comments
blackfeline
hansolo
These are unproven, untested methods which rely solely on anecdotal evidence.
I think it’s despicable that they prey on the fragile emotions of parents with autistic children, and charge them exorbitant sums.
It’s not a matter of “not wanting to believe”. Rather, produce the peer-reviewed medical studies and people will be convinced.
In fact, I think alternative therapies should be banned by MOH.
For once, Straits Times is doing a great service to Singaporeans.
hansolo
blackfeline:
In such a debate, Mr Seah will be shot down before you can say “quack”.
btw, people who peddle unproven alternative therapies are not “healthcare professionals”.
Mr Seah:
If there is research to support your claims, could you produce them? Of course, I would be referring to peer-reviewed scientific studies with proper controls in place. Anecdotal claims (e.g. “It worked for my kid, so I know it’s effective”) do not count as scientific studies, even if published in journals with impressive-sounding titles.
I would be most interested to hear of them.
Those who are truly “most interested” to know learn more about the available research will easily find them. All it takes is a bit of research.
To make it even easier, some references have been listed by John Yeo in the comments section of my original blog, http://healthpromotionblog.wordpress.com
As hansolo has pointed out, peer-reviewed medical studies would help support Mr. Seah’s assertion about the effectiveness of the various alternative therapies for autism.
Since he and Mr. John Yeo are familiar with the literature, it would be very informative if they could discuss one such study and highlight the significance of its findings for the benefit of The Online Citizen readers.
Since Mr. Seah feels strongly about this matter, I believe that we need not wait long.
lim
I do not have an autistic kid so I could not possibly understand what the parents go through.
Still, I can understand a parent’s desire to explore every alternative to help his/her kid.
I do also note that doctors like any other human include unscrupulous people who will precisely prey on such feelings.
As a general guide, better to seek a second or even third opinion before embarking on alternative treatments. At least go in with eyes open.
Good Timing
Very good timng to open up subject.
Much money is spent by Singaporeans in the area of Alternative & Complementary Medicine- so far the literature seen circulating are advertisements and marketing brochures.
Also there are students keen to study such subjects overseas thinking that there are real prospects of a career here.
Perhaps the HSA can be invited to comment in a coming forum to be organised. Can Mr Richard Seah and Mr John Yeo lead us ? This will be truly a rewarding session for all who attend.
A Tan
Richard
I don’t think Andy Ho is a medical doctor. His doctorate is in some social science. I once had email flaming session with him. And in it, he gave his credentials.
I got him very angry when I told him I had only A-Levels. And I no longer had to work.
No need to even talk about public forums with HSA or whoever.
ST would not even publish a 400-word letter from us. I believe some parents whose children have benefitted under John’s care have also written in and so far nothing published.
One parent was interviewed by Ms Basu and she said her child became a lot more focused after following the CFGF Diet (no milk, no wheat). Her comments were totally left out in Ms Basu’s report, which only quoted another parent saying her child had problems with the diet.
As for online discussion, I already gave a link to my original blog which has a long list of scientific references provided by John. Those who want to find out even more than also visit John’s website http://www.autism-nutrition.com.
If readers do not even bother to click a link that is already provided, all I can conclude is that they are just here for the sake of debate and not genuinely interested in finding out more.
With regards Dr Andy Ho, what I understand is that he is both medical doctor and PhD in something.
Thank you Mr Seah for this insightful article. I think as educated discerning individuals, we can differentiate between tunnel vision comments of a flaming nature, and factual, albeit alternative discourse.
If there is one thing I object to, it’s someone telling me how to think and what is right or wrong.
Ah yes, the perpetual claim that complementary medicine lack double blind control trials (DBCT) and is therefore quackery. I challenge anyone here to produce a DBCT on say spinal surgery or even physiotherapy for rehab of stroke. Or try designing a DBCT that takes into account 3 possible causes for a condition and where patients are known to respond to 5 different treatments but not all of them. If there are any statisticians out there, I think you know what kind of maths I am talking about.
In the clinical front line, common sense has to prevail. Even medical doctors would ignore the lack of DBCT and use a drug off label if the situation warrants. So what situation warrants ignoring DBCT? Complex conditions like Syndrom X, Multiple Sclerosis, Asthma, Autism etc. where no single cause can be dentified and where different patients respond well to different kinds of treatment. We have to move from method centered to patient centered approach. We have to listen carefully to the patient and ask what seems to be helping and what is not. If we ignore this, then we are putting science ahead of patient care.
Don’t get me wrong. I am a scientist at heart and I enjoy reading scientific literature. Science can guide our decisions on what are the possibe causes and treatments. It is the patient’s response that is paramount in actual practice. You simply cannot dictate that a patient must get well because you are applying the best treatment based on DBCT. Sometimes, a patient will get better with just a simple change in diet. For that patient, you can throw DBCT out of the window.
“I challenge anyone here to produce a DBCT on say spinal surgery or even physiotherapy for rehab of stroke.”
That is an interesting challenge, however Mr. Seah’s article today is about alternative therapies for autism.
I think it will be even more interesting and relevant to discuss his topic, which is also your area of expertise.
It doesn’t have to be a double blind trial – just select what you consider is the best evidence for the effectiveness of any one alternative therapy and highlight its key findings here.
Mr. Seah stressed that the Straits Times have rejected your letters (they have rejected some of mine too) but this is an open forum – a good opportunity for you to support your case.
I’m sure that you would like to get your message out to the concerned parents and caretakers who want to know more about alternative therapies and autism.
I already provided a link to the list of scientific references. See Comment #4 above.
For the benefit of The Online Citizen readers who are not scientific experts, including the vast majority of concern parents, why not just discuss one of those studies?
Both you and Mr. Yeo are familiar with this field. Mr. Yeo has even emphasized that he enjoys reading scientific literature. Surely you can describe a study and highlight its key findings?
Just one, Mr. Seah, you can do it.
Several discussions are already available on http://www.autism-nutrition.com – eg studies on chelation, probiotics, vitamin B12, HBOT, neurofeedback, etc.
Those who do not bother to just click a few links shall not be entertained.
John Yeo
“Both you and Mr. Yeo are familiar with this field. Mr. Yeo has even emphasized that he enjoys reading scientific literature. Surely you can describe a study and highlight its key findings?”
There are actually lots of peer reviewed articles on the subject, if you are sincerely interested, why don’t you look them up yourself? You seem like someone who knows science.
Alright, I will oblige you with just one:
S Jill James, Paul Cutler, Stepan Melnyk, Stefanie Jernigan, Laurette Janak, David W Gaylor and James A Neubrander . “Metabolic biomarkers of increased oxidative stress and impaired methylation capacity in children with autism.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 80, No. 6, 1611-1617, December 2004
I am doing this more for the benefit of parents who are genuinely interested and not for the sake of arguement. So I will explain this in layman’s language.
The study was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a very mainsteam medical journal. The lead author is Dr. Jill James, a professor from Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, and the Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research Institute.
They compared 9 biological markers in the blood of 20 autistic children and 33 children without autism. They found that the levels of the 9 biological markers in autisic children were significantly different from the non-autistic children. The implications were that autistic children are not as efficient in making a protein (methionine) responsible for cell renewal (among other things) and they were also low in an anti-oxidant called reduced glutathione which is responsible for heavy metals detoxification (among other things). Then they supplemented the autistic children with folic acid, Vitamin B12 and betaine which resulted in the normalization of the biological markers. The parents of these autistic children also reported subjective improvements in behaviour.
Ok? satisfied?
Leng Hiong
I keep getting an error message.
Leng Hiong
I keep getting:
“Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!”
Leng Hiong
Mr. Seah:
\”Several discussions are already available on http://www.autism-nutrition.com – eg studies on chelation, probiotics, vitamin B12, HBOT, neurofeedback, etc.\”
Since you don\’t want to pick a study to discuss, I\’ll pick one for you.
The key claim in chelation therapy is that mercury in vaccines is a significant cause of autism, and that drugs such as DMSA (which removes heavy metals such as mercury from the bloodstream) is an effective treatment for autism.
But do children with autism have higher levels of mercury in their blood, and/or difficulty excreting it?
Both you and Mr. Yeo have referenced this study:
Bradstreet J, Geier DA, Kartzinell JJ, Adams JB, Geier MR, 2003. A case-control study of mercury burden in children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. J.Am. Phys. Surg 8(3): 76-79
Original paper – http://www.jpands.org/vol8no3/geier.pdf
It is a single-blind retrospective study with 221 cases and 18 controls, which is a good sample size.
However, this study has some irregularities.
1. Instead of directly measuring mercury concentration in blood, the researchers measured the amount of mercury excreted in urine.
According to their results, even before DMSA treatment, children with autism have more than 3 times the amount of mercury in their urine than control subjects.
After a 3-day DMSA treatment, children with autism have six times the amount of mercury in their urine compared to controls!
However, both vaccinated and unvaccinated control subjects do not have elevated levels of mercury in their urine. This indicates that vaccination is not a direct cause of high mercury in urine.
The result only shows that for some unexplained reason, there is high mercury in the urine of autistic patients.
It could be due to higher mercury intake, or lower tissue retention, or even that control subjects are retaining more mercury in their bloodstream!
Without data from blood, we cannot conclude much from these results.
2. The quality of the data doesn\’t look good. Mean urinary mercury level is measured in micrograms per gram of creatinine units (mcg/g), and this is the data for children with autism:
Mercury level before treatment = 4.06 +/- 8.59 mcg/g
Mercury level after treatment = 6.42 +/- 12.69 mcg/g
The error bars are huge. The standard deviation is even larger than the mean itself, indicating that many children have no mercury in their urine at all.
Thus the results may be statistically significant, but not physiologically significant.
3. The paper contains a clause regarding two of the authors in this study:
\”Potential conflict of interest: Dr. Mark Geier has been an expert witness and a consultant in cases involving adverse reactions to vaccines before the U.S. Vaccine Compensation Act and in civil litigation. David Geier has been a consultant in cases involving adverse reactions to vaccines before the U.S. Vaccine Compensation Act and in civil litigation.\”
I have read many scientific papers, probably as much as Mr. Yeo has, however, this is the first time I\’ve come across such a statement in any paper.
This suggests that these authors have vested interests. To learn more about Dr. Mark Geier, here\’s a primer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Geier
Dr. Geier is a controversial figure. In fact one of his recent papers to Autoimmunity Reviews has been retracted. To have a paper retracted is a serious setback on the reputation of a researcher.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7595/666
On top of this, although DMSA is approved for the treatment of mercury and lead poisoning, it can also remove essential minerals such as calcium and iron.
Thus DMSA has potentially serious side effects for developing children.
As Mr. Yeo has pointed out in his website (http://www.autism-nutrition.com/chelation-therapy.html) a study on DMSA funded by US NIH has been halted due to safety concerns.
In the light of all these facts, I would like to know on what basis does Mr. Seah and Mr. Yeo continue to support chelation therapy, and how do they intend to establish the safe dose of DMSA for their patients?
Leng Hiong
The Online Citizen is not letting me respond. As such I leave this discussion and wish all of you a good week ahead.
hansolo
I have a science degree and I am familiar with the experimental method.
So I am rather disappointed that Mr Seah chose to quote one parent’s subjective experience as his evidence that alternative methods work for autism.
His repeated urgings for readers to visit his link are a sign that there really isn’t much scientific evidence available. Or maybe he just wants more hits?
But since he insisted, I obliged. Here is the link listing the references:
(Look for the long comment by John Yeo)
After looking through his references, here are my comments. Refuting points take some time, do bear with me.
1. Some are studies mentioning possible links between autism and mercury. They are NOT studies about possible cures.
2. Some studies do not list which journals they are published in, or are simply presented at conferences i.e. NOT even published.
3. There’s only one study which seemed credible:
(Rossignol DA, Rossignol LW, James SJ, Melnyk S, Mumper E., The effects of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on oxidativestress, inflammation, and symptoms in children with autism: an open-label pilot study. BMC Pediatrics 2007 Nov 16;7:36.)
The journal is BMC Pediatrics, which is a peer-reviewed journal according to their web site. Their editorial board lists universities of high standing.
So I looked up the original article (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/7/36), and here are the main findings:
In the words of the authors:
1. Pre- and post-parental observations indicated statistically significant improvements in both groups, including motivation, speech, and cognitive awareness (p < 0.05).
What it means: Both the treatment and control groups showed improvements. This shows the placebo effect at work. The method itself has no effectiveness.
2. However, since this was an open-label study, definitive statements regarding the efficacy of HBOT for the treatment of individuals with autism must await results from double-blind, controlled trials.
What it means: You can’t claim the method to be effective without a double-blind test. Even the authors are careful to state this.
Yet there are advocates out there that are too quick to jump on these studies and proclaim that certain methods work.
I believe I have proven my point: alternative therapies for autism are unproven in properly designed double blind trials published in peer-reviewed journals.
You can go ahead and link more studies, I will let the readers of this blog do their own research and decide for themselves how credible they are.
I don’t have an autistic child, and I will never understand the agony and pain of the parents. But advocating the use of unproven methods is simply just wrong.
Coming back to the ST articles, they are most critical of alternative methods involving diets or drugs, which have the greatest potential for causing harm.
They didn’t mention biofeedback or oxygen therapies, but then again, there simply isn’t much real evidence that they work.
MP Denise Phua herself has an autistic child. I believe that MOH is on the right track.
hansolo
Leng Hiong,
I have no problem posting my very long comment.
Ed
I have read this article with much interest and John’s citation is but one of the few studies out of a whole bunch studying chelation and CAM therapies. A comprehensive coverage of these studies, including the one cited by John can be found on the Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, one of the major journals in the field.
Clinical Report: Management of Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders
Scott M. Myers, MD, Chris Plauché Johnson, MD, MEd the Council on Children With Disabilities
PEDIATRICS Vol. 120 No. 5 November 2007, pp. 1162-1182 (doi:10.1542/peds.2007-2362)
The above paper is one of the best and most recent reports on this issue and deals with CAM and describes CAM and therapies stated in the article. To quote a representative paragraph of the recommendations towards CAM,
“Because of methodologic flaws, insufficient numbers of patients, or lack of replication, many CAM therapies have been inadequately evaluated; therefore, evidence-based recommendations for their use are not possible.”
“Parents of children with ASDs will understandably pursue interventions that they believe may present some hope of helping their child, particularly if the therapies are viewed as being unlikely to have any adverse effects. Unfortunately, families are often exposed to unsubstantiated, pseudoscientific theories and related clinical practices that are, at best, ineffective and, at worst, compete with validated treatments or lead to physical, emotional, or financial harm. Time, effort, and financial resources expended on ineffective therapies can create an additional burden on families. Health care professionals can help parents and other caregivers to distinguish empirically validated treatment approaches from treatments that have been proven to be ineffective and those that are unproven and potentially ineffective and/or harmful. ”
I am disappointed that TOC has chosen to publish such an article that contradicts sound, evidence based clinical practice.
hansolo
Ed:
You echo my sentiments.
I think TOC has fallen into the trap of dismissing all ST articles (especially Andy Ho’s) as state-sanctioned propaganda, and have jumped to a wrong conclusion this time.
Hopefully they will be more rigorous in accepting guest articles next time.
To Hansolo and Ed,
Thanks for your comprehensive responses. I have posted my original reply in my blog if you are interested. Good night.
theonlinecitizen
Leng Hiong,
Your post contained more than two url link. As such, it is automatically sent to the spam / moderation queue to await manual approval from us. (This is a mechanism to prevent spam from porn sites, especially, from being posted on this site. I believe Wordpress blogs have this function.)
Your comment has now been approved. Apologies that it took so long but we were all busy.
To everyone: If your comment is not immediately published, please be patient.
Hansolo, it is clearly stated in the article that it represents Richard’s personal views. The bigger aim of us publishing it is to generate discussion on the topic. To be sure, we do not claim to be experts in the issue. But we do hope that the discussion it generates will benefit everyone. That, to me, is the more important purpose.
Regards,
Andrew Loh
John Yeo
“Because of methodologic flaws, insufficient numbers of patients, or lack of replication, many CAM therapies have been inadequately evaluated; therefore, evidence-based recommendations for their use are not possible.”
This is only a comment, an opinion. This is not evidence. CAM researchers usually do not have the luxury of doing large trials becasue the solutions usually involve non-patientable products (like vitamins) so few would fund such works. It is now for the sceptics to disprove what trials that are already out there.
Also, what has mainstream medicine been able to offer families so far? After years of research and trials, the FDA finally approved Respidol for treatment of violent behaviour in autism in 2007. Just ask around, how many autistic kids are out there on Respidol who do not have violent behaviour? Where is the science in this one? But the drug is still justifiable if the treatment is the best we can offer for a particular child at that particular moment, notwithstanding the weight gains, diabetes, and hyperlipidimia reported as side effects.
To Mr. Loh,
Thanks for the clarification. It would be better if we can see a \”sent to moderation queue\” message, if wordpress can do this.
Meanwhile I will bear the two URL limit in mind.
Mr. Loh,
Thanks for your clarification.
Ed
Hello Andrew,
It is understandable that you and the TOC crew would like to generate some discussion regarding this topic but as an alternative media provider, it is prudent that the management of this website view the website as a respectable source of information. However laudable your effort to promote scientific discussion, the title would immediately skew the readers to take a certain stand, without even considering what was said in the article, let alone read the comments, however strongly defended.
It is but a shame that writers such as Richard Seah is allowed to air errant, misleading, unsubstantiated or weakly substantiated claims on a website that receives a healthy readership. Most respectable publications have science editors who are familiar with the scientific process to vet any publications of such nature due to its potential threat to public health, should somebody seek out the “alternative” at best, “dangerous” at worst therapies suggested. This is probably a reason why their letters to ST were ignored.
As Mr. Richard Seah says,
“What about journalists who make equally false claims about treatments being unscientific and ineffective, without checking out the research that is readily available?”
I would like to ask this much about him:
“What about columists or ex-journalists who make false claims to the scientific veracity of their treatments without throughly understanding the principles of the scientific process and quality of publications?”
Also, I would like to enquire about the vested interests of both Mr. Richard Seah and Mr. Yeo, given their close relations to the providers of such “alternative treatments”, with Mr. Yeo being listed as one of the people running http://www.the-autism-clinic.com which is a clinic that appears to provide such treatments.
John and I have already declared our interest in this topic. John is a biomedical practitioner and I am his friend and web designer. We have nothing to hide.
We question, however, what is the vested interest of ST senior writer Ms Basu who purports to write an article about “alternative treatments for autism” but then all the examples she cites – except for passing mention of homeopathy – relate to biomedical treatment.
And why she featured only those who did not benefit / got worse but left out those who benefitted.
Ultimately, my article is about ST’s treatment of the subject – not about autism treatment per se. Within 10 days, ST published one full page plus 2 half page articles – all damning, some using very strong emotive words like bizarre and voodoo and all zooming in on biomedical treatment.
hansolo
Mr Seah:
Can I ask what exactly you mean by “biomedical treatment”, and is it something specific to autism treatment? It’s an impressive sounding term that lends legitimacy to unproven treatments.
“Alternative” implies something different from mainstream, but just as effective. That’s not the case here, so we should refer to them as “unproven” treatments.
The ST took a firm stand against unproven therapies that have exacted a high financial, physical and emotional cost on autistic children and their parents. There were no personal attacks, and they didn’t call those practitioners “quacks” or “frauds”. I thought it was very generous of the ST writers.
I’m surprised that it’s not a criminal offence to practise medicine without a license. Even TCM sinseh has to be registered. Can anyone shed light on this?
Biomedical treatment refers to an approach, championed by the US-based Autism Research Institute (ARI) that views autism as being at least partly a physical problem and not purely a psychological problem.
ARI founder the late Dr Bernard Rimland (I think PhD psychology) took autism out of the “dark ages” when, as recently as the 1960s, it was widely seen as being due to cold, uncaring “refrigerator mothers”. Back then, standard medical treatment for autism included having kids beat up and spit at dummies that represent their mothers. And, of course, drugging them senseless.
In the biomedical approach, autistic children are screened for various physical problems including heavy metal toxicity (whether due to vaccination or other causes), yeast infection, nutritional deficiency, food sensitivity, etc. Treatment is then applied to address these related issues.
As such, the treatments are not strictly “autism treatments”. But by treating these other issues, autism symptoms often go away.
The word biomedical is not just a fancy term intended to lend legitimacy to such treatment. It is very much founded on medical science and practised worldwide by medical doctors, or related professionals like nutritionists.
John has an MSc in Sports and Nutrition and he works with a senior paeditrician who has been in practice for decades. Another two biomedical practitioners that I know about are a doctor and someone with MSc in nutrition.
However, even though the majority of biomedical practitioners are doctors / nutritionists, it is considered “alternative” because the mainstream view is that autism cannot be treated.
In the US, the ARI has presented more than 1,000 cases of autistic children who have recovered to the point where they are no longer distinguishable from regular non-autistic children.
Even in Singapore, there are a number of autistic kids who, with the help of biomedical and other treatment, are now attending regular schools and their school mates do not know that they were previously autistic.
_________
With regards to ST article being kind… Andy Ho (as did some commenters here) did use that rude word – Quack.
Yet his article was generally factual and he generally refrained from the use emotive language, in contrast, Ms Basu freely used words like bewildering, bizarre, voodoo, dangerous, misery, devastation, hyperbole, etc etc.
She even sarcastically commented on the parent whose child improved on alternative treatment, saying, “For now, at least”.
Who is she to proclaim, to over a million ST readers, that the child’s improvements are only “for now”?
hansolo
Mr Seah:
You might have vested commercial interests in advocating these alternative treatments, but I feel that if you are serious about promoting them, then you should try your best to get them accepted by mainstream healthcare professionals.
The only way is with properly designed experiments.
All you have got now is subjective, anecdotal evidence given by parents who are desperately hoping and wishing for any signs of improvement. It could be placebo or wishful thinking.
If you have a headache and I give you a sugar pill disguised as a Panadol, and your pain disappears, does that mean sugar is an effective treatment for headaches?
Of course not.
But if you and John take the view that there is somehow a conspiracy against your unproven treatments, or it is impossible to design a proper clinical trial to test your theories, then your treatments, no matter how good you think they are, will never be accepted by most of the parents you proclaim you wish to help.
John Yeo
This is a joint post by Richard and John.
We are grateful to TOC for the opportunity to open debate that The Straits Times had denied us – and at least two or three parents of autistic children who have written to ST Forum so far. We feel the conspiracy is not about the evidence (or lack of it) in CAM. The conspiracy here is about the lack of space for a differing view.
There is more that can be said about the use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) vs Allopathic Medicine (AM) and we will probably not be able to form any meaningful conclusion in this forum given the strong opinions from both sides. We would like to discuss more but we don’t have the luxury of time.
The use of diets and health supplements for autistic children is already widely accepted among parents in Singapore. We do not think anything said in this forum is going to make a big difference to them for as long as they feel these practices are helping their children.
To say that CAM has no scientific evidence is untrue. As we have demonstrated, there is evidence. The evidence may not be as much or as thorough as we would like and more certainly needs to be done. Still, one cannot deny that some level of scientific backing does exist.
Further, if you understand autism, those who have recovered are almost always in the younger age group. If you have a child with autism, I am sure the perspective would be differernt…you cannot wait too long for the science.
But the greatest justification is that many people have tried CAM and have benefited from it. To some, this may be “anecdotal” and don’t count for much. But to the autistic children and their families, any improvement is cherished.
To say that Complementary and Alternative Medicine is harmful and dangerous is also untrue. More people die from conventional medical treatment than from CAM. Insurance premium for CAM practice is far lower than AM practice.
Despite whatever charges that have been made against the use of CAM for autism or whatever, people are no fools. If alternative treatments do not work, why are they growing at very rapid rates, even right here in Singapore.
Just as TOC allows everyone a fair chance to air his/her views, we have to allow consumers the freedom of choice – without calling them names like “preys” and making them look naive and stupid.
In fact, people who seek alternative medical treatment are quite educated and savvy. They do their own research; they question practitioners thoroughly before embarking on a course of treatment.
It’s been a pleasure exchanging views with you folks. We do not like your insinuating remarks but we respect your freedom of expression. Please respect others’ freedom to speak and to choose.
YES to Freedom of Speech!
Richard Seah and John Yeo.
Ed
Dear Mr. Seah and Mr. Yeo,
I hate to be a drag and rebut you both line by line so I shall pick a few examples of your stubborn refusal to accept evidence.
“To say that CAM has no scientific evidence is untrue. As we have demonstrated, there is evidence. The evidence may not be as much or as thorough as we would like and more certainly needs to be done. Still, one cannot deny that some level of scientific backing does exist.”
You have either not read our articles while accusing us of not reading yours or are simply pretending that we did not provide evidence to contradict your spurious claims. Hansolo has already provided a list of articles and references that contradict your “studies” and has explained that the “research” stated just amounts to one of the lowest levels of evidence: Conference papers with anectdotal evidence. Leng Hiong has also pointed out that the only high quality research quoted by the links you gave us provided results contrary to your claims. I would advice you to read those articles, together with the consensus/clinical report I have provided the link to (this link is free, just in case you don’t have any access to the actual articles in PubMed).
“Just as TOC allows everyone a fair chance to air his/her views, we have to allow consumers the freedom of choice – without calling them names like “preys” and making them look naive and stupid.”
TOC allows people to have a fair chance to air views but these views aired must hold water and be factually correct and coherent. Patients and their caregivers do have a freedom of choice PROVIDED THEY HAVE INFORMED CONSENT to the treatments. From what I have gathered from your posts, neither of you appear to be sufficiently qualified or knowledgable about research and clinical best practices to advise patients accordingly. To provide treatment to cure a disease is to practice medicine and you indeed have to be licensed. I hope the relevant authorities will take note and persue this issue with great interest. Nobody calls their patients preys.
No medical professional would call their patients consumers, the way you have above.
Query
I have a question on complementary medicine – there are several energetic products in the market – the range is from infra red to the high end devices which claimed anti-oxidant effects.
Whilst I understand heat treatment, I do not get the it with anti-oxidants which I thought needed oral consumption for effects.
Can experts throw some light here ?
Thank you.
IMHO, I think proper perspective needs to be applied here.
First of all, any non-mainstream therapy will always face an uphill task and it is no surprise that the media and even several comments in this thread smack of disdain – this is to be expected.
Second, the ST (and its sisters, cronies and goons) operates under a different model – which many of us fail to recognise. As in any magazine, it only concerns itself with its own POV – just like how a pro-religious magazine is likely to dismiss science as the work of teh devil. I understand that due to its layout and design, many of us might mistake it for a daily newspaper and here is where we fall into the wrong understanding. No, no, it is a daily magazine, that’s all. And we can’t be taking what magazines say seriously at all, as simple as that.
Also, only those who are hopelessly dependent on the Singapore system (ie. like those plugged into the ‘Matrix’ – as in the movie) rely on ST as the gospel of truth. And such people would hardly care what the other side has to say anyway. As for the rest, we are interested in debate and hearing both sides of he argument. And for this, we have many wonderful resources online to get the information and get our burning questions answered as well.
So, I say, why worry what ST has to say in the first place? If our forum letters deliberately get unpublished, it just means we must have a damn good point to have scared them isn’t it? We certainly have better platforms…
Just a mom of 2
I am just a mom of two children. I felt compelled to write this after reading what I deem rather unfair attacks directed at the authors of this article. I know how it feels to be called “cuckoo” by someone who insists on empirical evidence to prove something works. I have been called a “cuckoo mom” for doing the things I do.
Both my children were born with a genetic condition caused by an abnormal protein that affects their ligaments and connective tissues. This condition impedes their growth and they are delayed where the usual milestones are concerned.
The geneticist declared there is “no cure” and we would just have to live with it.
I did not accept that. I tried Complementary and Alternative Medicines and Therapies to help them and just wanted to share that the very same therapies that the ST reporters and some of TOC commenters seem to be very against are the very same therapies that helped my two children achieve what they are capable of today.
The same therapies that get a bad name and are labelled “quack” are the ones my children benefitted from.
I guess it’s a case of one man’s meat is another’s poison. It is entirely all right if you don’t believe the therapy works. But please don’t belittle those who have actually tried and benefitted from it. We are grateful and thankful for these therapies!
I am just a mother, so I don’t have any evidence in numbers or control tests to show except my two children, who are healthy and alive, and high functioning, thanks to Biomedical Science, TCM, CST and GFCF.
Thanks Ganga and Mom of 2. Your encouragement and affirmations are deeply appreciated.
Energetic Believer
Like “Just A Mom of 2″ , I am “Just a Dad of 2″, and my comment to all is to keep an open mind.
CAM has been around since biblical times and after physical medicine and chemical medicine, what choice does one have but to seek out CAM for cures which are not found in the mainstream. There is always the subjectivity but there is also the merging trend, and from my own experience, the closest “cure all ” so to speak in prevention can be found in the strict following of Nutritional Therapy , and Vibratory Medicine for a total holistic healing.
An anonymous mother of two un-named children with an un-named genetic condition diagnosed by an un-named geneticist from an un-named institution claims that her children experienced unspecified improvement in their condition after unspecified treatment from a number of “alternative therapies” provided by un-named insitutions over an unspecified time-frame.
I’m sorry, Just a mom of 2 – you may choose to hold a *belief* that the therapies work, but if you come onto a public forum with a *claim* that they do, I think readers may expect more details and a means to verify your story. After all, if your beliefs are correct, parents of children with the same disease as yours may stand to benefit from the knowledge.
(Yes, I am an anonymous blogger, but I do not make my arguments with unverifiable personal ancedotes but refer to (and link to) published studies in my entries where relevant.)
Anecdotes vs Anecdotes
Has anyone noticed that the so-called proponents of scientific evidence never take issue with anecdotes about negative effects of alternative medicine, such as those reported in ST, but only with anecdotes about positive effects such as the one shared here by Just a mom of 2 ?
Much has been said, and I would just like to add that the problem with anecdotal evidence favoured by alternative therapy practitioners is its highly selected nature. We have seen evidence put forth in this thread that most interventions will generate perceived benefit as a result of the placebo effect, regardless of whether there is an objective response, and whether there is a true biologic gain. An additional effect that biases towards complementary medicine that has not been mentioned is that those perceiving benefit are most likely to become spokespersons for a movement. Those who do not perceive benefit are unlikely to go to the press.
An excellent example of this selection bias is when doctors inform a patient that he has a median prognosis of 6 months. The vast majority will probably have an eventual survival between 3-9 months, some 70-80% of them trying complementary medicine as well. A small and limited number, by the very nature of biology and random variation, will have a far longer survival. It’s called ‘median’ because 50% will live less than 6 months, and 50% will live longer. Some of these patients who do survive will attribute their survival to complementary medicine, a miracle etc.
When one reads letters to the press on anecdotal cases of patients who ‘did well on complementary medicine’, one sees these phenomena of selection at work. The question is what is the denominator of patients who tried the therapy. Unfortunately for those who prefer anecdotal medicine, this is only available in the setting of a trial.
Now if alternative medicine was as cheap and free of adverse effects as water, there would be much less fuss from all around, and most physicians would probably turn a blind eye. Unfortunately, alternative medicine and much of the naturopathic industry makes expensive products with little documented benefit and most with little studied adverse effects.
Anecdotes vs ancedotes indeed, Mr Seah, except we proponents of scientific evidence have not used the anecdotes in the ST articles to make our case in this discussion, but cited relevant studies.
But what is it going to be, Mr Seah? Are anecdotes to be “appreciated”? Or are they unreliable? How many negative anecdotes cancel out one positive anecdotes?
Fact is the plural of anecdote is not data, and it is certainly not evidence, so let’s stop arguing with anecdotes and start produing evidence, shall we?
As Angrydoc and Hopeful Oncologist has already dealth with Mr. Seah’s persistent questioning (whilst skirting the issues that we wish that he explain himself), I shall deal with the claims of Energetic Believer:
“CAM has been around since biblical times and after physical medicine and chemical medicine, what choice does one have but to seek out CAM for cures which are not found in the mainstream.”
Some CAM therapies which are particularly dangerous, for example Mr. Seah’s chelation therapies are definitely new while drinking water, aka homeopathy has indeed a long history. I do not understand what Energetic Believer means by physical and chemical medicine but I would assume he refers to modern medicine. Whilst not claiming to have a cure for all diseases, modern medicine has indeed developed a system of rigourous testing to prove or disprove proposed therapies. CAM has never been conclusively or scientifically shown to provide a cure for a disease. Just because something has been around for a long time does not mean that it is tried and tested. I wouldn’t try trepenation for a headache, would you?
“There is always the subjectivity but there is also the merging trend, and from my own experience, the closest “cure all ” so to speak in prevention can be found in the strict following of Nutritional Therapy , and Vibratory Medicine for a total holistic healing.”
This issue of subjectivity is precisely why there is a need for randomised blinded trials to erase this subjectivity to provide a more objective and scientific method of assessing one’s claims about therapies. I would kindly request all future CAM supporters to refrain from anecdotal claims and provide us with information in the form of good research. It is never enough to base one’s belief on your own experience as the above comments have explained. Whatever fancy words you use to describe CAM (I would rather dispute even the use of “complementary” and “alternative” as there are quite a few modalities that are quite the opposite), be it Nutritional Therapy or imagining being healed by “vibrational energies”, they must all be backed up with sound evidence to be accepted as a treatment option.
Would the authors of the article or supporters kindly stop shifting the argument around, be sincere in your request to have a space to air your views and answer the questions we have posed in the above comments? If not, it would be blatantly apparent that you are just simply airing unjustifiable “grieviances” without being sincere in wanting to have an opportunity for free speech and to take responsibility for the materials that you have uploaded here.
Leng Hiong, Hansolo, Angrydoc, Hopeful Oncologist and myself hail from many different scientific and medical disciplines and are sincere about engaging you, the authors on the issues that you have raised. It is about time you stop prevaricating and basking in the occasional anecdotal evidence by random anonymous posters and bring on good, sound evidence to justify your claims.
Energetic Believer
Thank you Ed for your views.
Investment in CAM in products and continued treatment can be expensive. Vibratory devices can cost several thousand dollars apiece.
Anti-aging treatments claiming neuron cell communication can cost a bomb.
Unfortunately there is not much support for research in CAM here; I was in Australia last month and read their Government’s funding of more than a $A 1 B for several aspects of CAM researchs in tie ups with 4 Australian universities.
As a consumer, I welcome more open discussion, and education in the CAM field. I am hungry for learning.
Ed
Dear Energetic Believer,
MRI Machines costs millions of dollars a piece and so do many other expensive yet scientifically proven diagnostic or medical therapeutic devices. Price has not deterred the manufacturers from doing extensive testing as the potential profits are huge and well worth the investment in detailed, extensive scientific research. This of course, is a calculated risk as they feel that there is indeed real scientific merit to doing such research as they are grounded in good science. CAM however, generally floats in the realm of airy pseudoscience and hence hardly worth the purchase of a single piece of “vibratory device” to research into. Moreover most prices of CAM devices are inflated versions of simple electronic devices, as often pointed out by many skeptic blogs like Ben Goodacre’s.
There is a good reason support here is scant as we are unable to afford frivolous research into areas in which there is no scientific merit. I would advise you to focus your hunger towards reading articles and papers of real scientific merit, such as those we have quoted above.
Energetic Believer,
There is in fact a lot of research on CAM, especially acupuncture and homeopathy. The problem however, besides what Ed mentioned about spending time and money on claims which lack scientific plausibility to begin with, is that despite the large number of studies showing the lack of efficacy, proponents do not abandon their claims, but always call for “one more study”. It’s sort of like playing ’scissors-paper-stone’ with someone who loses a round and then insists on “two wins out of three”, and when he loses the next round insists on “three out of five”, and so on.
If you interested in learning more about how we use science and statistics to evaluate the efficacy of treatments, as well as what the existing studies tell us about the various CAM therapies, you may want to read the books “Snake Oil Science” and “Trick or Treatment” (both of which are available from Amazon).
Thank you.
Darren
Thank you everyone thus far for contributing to what is, and I am sure most of you will agree, a very interesting thread.
My name is Darren and I am a doctor. This is just in case ‘angry doc’ has any issue and gets too angry with me being anonymous, just like you did on August 30th, 2008 4.11am. In fact, what pushed me to contribute to the thread was chiefly because of ‘angry doc’’s reply to ‘Just a mom of 2’ that day.
I believe it is clear there are 2 camps right now, and neither appears to be giving in. In my humble effort, I wish to bring the 2 camps just a little bit closer together. I will call the two camps ‘Doc’s’ and ‘Everyday people’. I will attempt to synthesize the current situation and perhaps, the best way forward.
Doc’s: Having been taught evidence-based medicine for what it seems to be our whole life, it is difficult for us to accept any drug or treatment without the so-called scientific methodology which included but not limited to the pre-clinical trials and the clinical trials (Phase I-IV). At this point, I will like to remind everyone that these methods are mainly to make sure that drugs are safe. Even if the drugs perform marginally better, even in optimal conditions (ie Phase III), as long as they are safe, there usually get approval and have patent rights. Which means patients sometimes pay for a so-called ‘better’ with no better response. Doctors will say that ,”Well, there are other cheaper drugs in the market, so why don’t you try those? There produce the same response. Maybe just a higher risk of diarrhoea.”. Honestly ‘Doc’s’, if the patient was your next-of-kin, and you have the financial capability, will you offer this option to them? I guess not.
Everyday people: And perhaps this is where sometimes we find ourselves trapped. I use ‘we’ because I was a patient. Again, you can be cynical and think that I am cooking this story up, like I said I think it is much better if we come together than to remain apart. Even if ‘Just a mom of 2’ is a fake (and I doubt it), can any of the doctors claim that her story is impossible and that it only happens in fairy tales? ‘First, do no harm. Perhaps ‘Doc’s’ do the most harm by actually dashing away any glimmer of hope. As long as we are not recommending treatment with harm is there any harm?
CAM is something that is coming on us whether ‘Doc’s’ like it or not. Most, if not all, public hospitals have a TCM unit in them now. Rather than adopting a ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude, ‘Doc’s’ should treat the patient and not do a ‘do this because I know best’. Ed wrote, “Just because something has been around for a long time does not mean that it is tried and tested”. I agree. However I also believe that just because something has been around for a long time, it should be respected. Unless Ed, you suggest that only ‘Doc’s’ are people with brains and the rest of us are fools? Surely not!
The goal is the same. Better health for all. The methods are different. And therein lies the problem. ‘Doc’s’ are running the 100m dash while the ‘Everyday people’ are running the marathon. (If the analogy is poor, I apologize). But essentially that is the problem. However, things are changing. Go to PubMed search engine and search for ‘complementary alternative medicine’ and you will see many hits. But almost none for ‘complementary alternative medicine phase III’.
I have no problem with anonymity, Darren, since you are stating a position based on facts and arguments and not an anecdote.
My assessment of the central issue here however differs from yours.
The issue here is more basic than that of FDA approval or phase I – IV trials – it is about what the best way to know if and to what degree a particular intervention improves a certain condition.
Let’s look at ‘mom of 2s’ account again. Her children suffered from a condition that “impedes their growth and they are delayed where the usual milestones are concerned”. They underwent “Biomedical Science, TCM, CST and GFCF” and now they are “healthy and alive, and high functioning”.
While that may be all that matters to ‘mom of 2′, I think there are other questions we should ask.
- Which of the modalities of treatment contributed to the improvement observed? How much of the improvement can be attributed to each of the modalities?
- How much improvement is due to the treatment, and how much is due to natural progression? (After all, the condition is supposed to *delay* milestones.)
- Are the improvements, in fact, due to the various treatment, and not just the natural history of the condition?
How do we know, at the end of the day, whether and what to offer to children with the same condition as ‘mon of 2s’ children?
You and I both know that the best way to answer those questions is through a properly designed study that includes the following features:
0. A plausible physiological basis for the treatment being tested.
1. A large enough study group.
2. A treatment arm (or arms) and a credible-placebo arm.
3. Proper randomisation into each arm, with a large enough population in each arm.
4. Adequate blinding of the subjects and researchers.
5. Low drop-out rate.
6. Proper collection and analysis of the data.
(The reason why I numbered the first feature 0 is because I think it can be waived if casual observation suggests a high probability of efficacy – if efficacy is proven the physiological basis of the mechanism can be worked out later. Others may disagree.)
I think you will agree, Darren, that this is a fair way to assess a ‘conventional’ mode of treatment. The question then is why are we willing to waive that for CAM and accept anecdotes as proof of efficacy instead?
Why, if the proponents of CAM are so sure of the efficacy of their modality of treatment for conditions which conventional medicine has no answer to, if they are so sure of their safety, if they are so supportive of research into CAM, and if they are (as mentioned by Energetic Believer) making good money out of CAM, are there so few high quality studies on CAM that show evidence of efficacy?
Do the PubMed search, Darren, and look at the studies. Look at the studies from the high Impact Factor journals and not the dedicated CAM ones with known publication bias (search PubMed on the subject of publication bias in CAM journals while you are at it too, in fact). Look at how many of them fulfill the criteria I laid out above. Count how many there are, and see what they say about the efficacy of CAM for the variety of conditions which their practitioners claim they are good for.
Now tell me: am I doing more harm by ‘dashing hopes’, and are CAM practitioners doing more harm by giving false hopes?
I agree with your classification of people into ‘Docs’ and ‘Everyday’. However, a person doesn’t have to be a doctor or scientist to be a ‘doc’; ‘Everyday people’ can also learn to look at issues with a critical mind if they are willing to question the way we take things from granted. That is the main reason why people like myself, Leng Hiong and Ed blog.
Finally, as one doctor to another, I would like to say this to you, Darren: you do not have the luxury of being an ‘Everyday person’. As a doctor, your role is that of an advocate for your patients. Your duty is to advise them on what their options are and to give them sound advice on what the efficacy, risks, and benefits of each are, based on the best evidence available. It is not playing peacemaker and trying to “bring the 2 camps just a little bit closer together” with no regard for facts and evidence.
Ed
Thank you for your clarification AngryDoc.
I’d just like to deal with this thing that Darren quoted me on:
“However I also believe that just because something has been around for a long time, it should be respected. Unless Ed, you suggest that only ‘Doc’s’ are people with brains and the rest of us are fools? Surely not!”
For what reason, Darren, do you base your respect on? Shouldn’t respect be earned and not just be a function of time? We respect the elderly because of their accumulated wisdom and respect other people because of the things they have done and the roles they have played. In what way does archaic methodologies with no proven efficacy earn our respect? Do you respect the idea of the sun revolving around the earth just because it is old?
As what Angrydoc has said, the main motivation of Clearthought bloggers and many other like-minded skeptic blogs, we are here to encourage people to think critically and objectively. Anybody can learn to assess evidence and to come to a logical, well informed decision. In this case, our vociferious opposition to this article stems from our desire to help in public education on such matters.
I would also like to reinterate Angrydoc’s point that a doctor’s role is to provide the best evidence of efficacy and safety to his/her patients and not to play the role of being the “middle-man” between two opposing sides. A responsible physician should give sound, clinical advice based on the best clinical evidence supported by good science, as Angrydoc has detailed above. It is frightening to believe that a physician should choose to do otherwise.
Just a mom of 2
Hi Darren, thank you for your insightfut sharing. You are definitely a “compassionate” doctor I would be comfortable taking my children to.
I really do not know why there is all this “fighting” (or online debate) over this topic. If something works for you, be it anecdotal whatever, it works, period. It doesn’t work for someone else, there could be so many reasons why. Sorry, I am not schooled in all this cheem things so I don’t see it at such a “high level” as the opponents to CAM.
It is interesting for me to read all these comments anyway!
Vexillum II » Blog Archive » The Cherished Right of Reply, Refused.
[...] has been close to a month since the publication of his article, entitled “A Straits Times campaign against alternative therapies?” and it is about time to review how peddlers of pseudoscience scream for the right of reply [...]
nonsense
Alternative medicine works and don’t work at times. Allopathic medicine works and don’t work at times. These are real facts. Only an idiot would insist otherwise. Dismissing either is clearly demonstrative of a closed mind.
Reality is all that matters to those who benefitted from either or both treatments. Don’t need a government or FDA or HSA sanction to prove otherwise.
Btw, are there scientific and clinical evidence to prove that GOD or any other Deities exist? I hate to have innocent happy good people pray to ducks. Quack! Perhaps, to protect the ignorant, all places of worship must bear an ISO certification to prove something is there for worship before being allowed to open, unless of course all donations is patented and goes directly into the coffers of ..ahem…u know who.
Mr. Seah,
I think you should challenge them (the 2 writers) to a public debate on this issue otherwise they are forever living in their ivory tower thinking whatever they said is ordained by a Supreme Being above.