Response: Is chiropractic for real or just quackery?

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
41

The “commercial” mentioned in your article was from a online website that just posted a clip from the Dr. Oz show on its website. It was presented here at 2:00 of a 1:38:53 C-Span episode. If you do watch the whole hearing, it is made perfectly clear if you didn’t automatically get it from the website clip, that Dr. Oz didn’t have anything to do with it; that is the internet in all its glory.

Again at the hearing there was nobody claiming Dr. Oz personally, or through his show, profited from any of the three products that had been mentioned on his show. All three weren’t patented products and it is made even more clear that the green tea advertisement that include Dr. Oz was from a company that entered the market after the show aired. Nowhere did the committee or anyone else claim, that any of these products indirectly bought commercial time from Dr. Oz or Harpo Production. In what the committee said about Dr. Oz, all the advertisements were from online sources, not broadcast media.

Georgetown also has a program. Harvard, Columbia, and Emory offer alternate medicine courses as do most medical schools. Are you assuming that there is a grand conspiracy of college administrators that no “expert” has any control over? One would think if major universities that produce a good number of America’s great doctors also had “questionable” alternative medicine programs that there would be a good deal of controversy. What network is carrying this story?

Several years ago researchers at Penn State did check Barrett’s website and concluded that of 5 random subjects, he failed to cite accurate studies, current medical knowledge, and all were mostly his personal opinion. Dr. Barrett gave up his license in 1993, and has admitted in court hearing that he hasn’t taken any continuing education classes in his specialty of Psychology, or even medicine in general. While he has claimed he could regain his license at anytime, both his former state of Pennsylvania and his current home of North Carolina, both have said it ISN’T just paying a license fee. He has a series of legal loses in California that the courts didn’t recognize his “expertise” and also got the same response from his former home of Pennsylvania.
I personally haven’t check “quackwatch” in several years, but he once claimed that the Atkins diet worked because after a couple of days people get sick and stop eating altogether… which in fact made it a simple calorie diet. That of course would be a surprise to the late Dr. Atkins, the AMA, and Consumers Union which had been researching the diet for over 40 years.

I think you have your sources confused, as it was the LEGAL community that got the ball rolling. They received some help when Circulation (the journal for the American Heart Association) ran a study supporting the legal case. Later help came from the Wall Street Journal that release their story a few days after the recall. It may have been that story, that forced the recall.

[QUOTE=MsRobyn]
Conversely, dietary supplements don’t have the same protections
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t know where to chop your speech. First alternative medicines do get regulated by the federal government. All natural products are what are not regulated by the FDA, but simply from the Department of Agriculture and the FTC. Like anything else is America, fly-by-night companies do come and go. To blame Dr. Oz, your local health food store, or even Whole Foods is very misleading. Do you really need to blame Walmart or Costco for every product recalled from their shelves? Dr. Oz has made (according to Wikipedia) over 800 episodes of which, in the passing views I’ve got of his show, he mentions 5 or 6 product. Assuming he has had the same format the whole run…that is at least 4000 products mentioned. If the three attending Senators at the hearing( there are 15 members of the Committee) can only find 3 items to mention to Dr. Oz, I think he should get an award, not a criticism from Senator McCaskill. It was stated throughout the hearing that the major problem in weight-loss, and in medicine in general, is that with the growth of the internet, cable television, and talk radio, along with newspapers, magazines, and conventional television…there are not enough self policing media personal and the government is undermanned. The fact McCaskill’s soundbite got on the nightly news is more about the fame of Dr. Oz than of what the Senator said.

42

Topiramate (Topamax) was never approved for weight loss. Was it? I know it’s an anti-seizure medication prescribed to epileptics and it’s used ‘off-label’ for migraine prevention (that’s why I take it). But as far as I knew, it had too many side effects to be considered a safe weight loss drug, even by prescription. Did something change?

43

Topiramate (Topamax) was never approved for weight loss. Was it? I know it’s an anti-seizure medication prescribed to epileptics and it’s used ‘off-label’ for migraine prevention (that’s why I take it). But as far as I knew, it had too many side effects to be considered a safe weight loss drug, even by prescription. Did something change? (I do know it was originally developed as a weight loss drug but was never approved as such.)

44

Chiroquacktic = quackery.

45

Networks, major newspapers and online news and blog sources have all covered this story. From NBC News:

*"Teaching about alternative medicine implies acceptance of it and “potentially creates more gullibility and less critical, objective thinking,” said Dr. Wallace Sampson, editor of the journal Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. “This will be felt in many indirect ways,” he said, including judgment errors, misguiding people with severe diseases, and lax standards and laws.

The real issue is not whether alternative medicine should be taught, but how, said Dr. Joseph Jacobs, former head of the federal Office of Alternative Medicine.

“The parallel here is creationism versus science,” Jacobs said. “If the topic is taught objectively, to help students communicate with patients, it’s a good idea. If it’s being taught as part of an advocacy, for acceptance among physicians, I think that’s a little bit bogus.”*

It is not a valid defense of woo to say that since some med schools teach it, it’s OK. The standard is whether it’s evidence-based medicine. It’s not.

I figured you’d start trashing Dr. Stephen Barrett instead of addressing any Quackwatch articles. This is a common altie ploy, including making insinuations about him losing his medical license. Barrett in fact is licensed in at least one state (you can look it up online), and never had a med license taken away. Like a lot of retired physicians, he did not renew his home state license (there’s little point in paying renewal fees if you’re not in active practice). I personally decided years ago not to keep paying thousands of dollars to maintain active licenses in states where I no longer work. Quackwatch’s enemies (quacks who do not like being labeled for what they are) like to pretend that Barrett was “de-licensed”, which is false.

Feel free to cite any Quackwatch articles on acupuncture or chiropractic and show where you think they’re wrong or unfair. Or post evidence that Barrett was ever disciplined by a medical board. But I don’t think you can. Vague attempts at character assassination seems to be more your speed.

Regarding Vioxx, I refer you to easily found online sources for info on the VIGOR study, the New England Journal of Medicine’s role in criticizing Merck and other medical community action that brought this story to public attention.

Your lack of knowledge of deficiencies in supplement regulation is too extensive to address in a forum like this. You should at least know that “natural products” do not have to be proven safe and effective like pharmaceutical drugs, and that the FDA can only act once problems arise. An astounding number of health claims are made by makers of such products, despite federal law that’s supposed to limit them. It’s a 32 billion dollar annual industry in the U.S. and traditional drug manufacturers are increasingly getting into the market because the lack of regulation and big profits make it attractive. And yes, it’s a problem worthy of attention - even if you want to point fingers everywhere else as a distraction.

46

It’s very clear that you didn’t read my post. To cut through the shit, woo sells, and it sells big. People want in on that action, so they sell stuff that is worthless or dangerous for no other reason than to make money. Dr. Oz, in particular, is being made an example of because he’s an MD who is associated with a major research facility. He’s also responsible for peddling woo and walking it back when he’s called on it. Yes, he’s got a profit motive. It’s called “advertising revenue” which comes from something called an “audience” that generates “ratings”. The higher the ratings, the more the advertising costs. Oz has every incentive to keep ratings as high as possible so his show and media empire make as much money as possible. He does this by peddling crap that he knows doesn’t work, but that his credulous audience wants to hear and believe in. It doesn’t matter who cuts the check that lines his pockets, he still profits off what he says. When he says that he’s not responsible for other people using his identity to sell this crap, he’s being disingenuous.

I never said any of that, and I have seen the video of the hearing. I don’t watch the Dr. Oz show, so I have no idea who advertises on it; a quick Google search didn’t turn up anything useful. That said, Dr. Oz is a brand. People are going to associate anything he does or says with him, whether he profits directly or not. The fact is that he himself has claimed that certain products are “miracle” weight loss products. He’s also got this crap all over his website; a brief look-see this morning gave me a slide show that gave weight loss advice that was either obvious (avoid processed foods), contradictory (weigh yourself regularly and track your weight in a journal/avoid weighing on a scale and use a tape measure to track your progress), or questionable (eating red pepper flakes in the morning helps reduce hunger during the day; I do use red pepper flakes on easy-to-overindulge foods like pizza and pasta when I eat out, but the effect seems to last for the meal, not the rest of the day.) I know he doesn’t write most of this stuff, and I don’t know who does, but it’s his name on the show, the website, the magazines, the books, and who knows what else. He gets a check from some of it, and he’s crying all the way to the bank.

What are they teaching? Are they teaching SCAM as a legitimate form of treatment, or are they offering training so that new physicians know about them and can address them with their patients? Yale, to use the cite you initially gave, plans to conduct serious, rigorous research into the efficacy of SCAM therapies. Just because something is taught doesn’t mean that the school teaching it is advocating for its use. They’re teaching it because it’s something that comes up frequently in daily practice and it makes sense to learn about them. Even if the physician in question actually uses these therapies in practice, a responsible physician can stop the SCAM if the patient turns out to have a more serious illness, as opposed to the chiropractor who wants to keep the patient.

No, they aren’t. The FDA regulates drugs before they enter the market. Every drug is required to go through several stages of testing and clinical trials before it is allowed to enter the marketplace; if a drug fails any of these trials, it’s not approved for use in the United States. The FDA also monitors drugs for problems after they enter the marketplace, so action can be taken if there is, in fact, a problem. Finally, the FDA also monitors manufacturing practices so that if a factory is having quality control issues, those drugs can be pulled off the shelves.

Supplements and most devices receive no such regulation. Anyone can put anything in a pill and claim it as a supplement and receive no oversight at all. Consequently, a manufacturer can contaminate his product with who-knows-what and it won’t be caught until the manufacturer is sued or someone files a claim with the FTC. At best, you’ve wasted your money. At worst, you can die. (The FDA was involved with this because it regulates drugs. Sibutramine, aka Meridia, is no longer sold in the United States and it was a category IV controlled substance when it was.) These are examples of the more egregious offenses; other supplements can be contaminated with fillers and extra ingredients that some people are sensitive or allergic to. Drug manufacturers are required to list all ingredients; supplement manufacturers aren’t. Again, caveat emptor.

Bullshit. There is a whole body of American law that has to do with who can exploit one’s identity for commercial gain. Dr. Oz, as a brand, presumably has a marketing and legal staff who have to know this and who could have taken steps to stop the misuse of his name and keep control of his brand. His claiming ignorance now doesn’t speak well of him, his staff, or his reputation as a serious physician.

Again, woo sells, and my friend Jackmanii told you how much it makes every year. Costco, Walgreens, Wal-Mart, and my corner pharmacy all sell this crap because they want to run a profitable business. If their customers want crap, they’ll sell crap. I think most of it’s worthless, so I don’t bother with any of it; I’ve got better things to spend my money on. But I’m also averse to risking injury because I have no idea what’s in those pills or the competence of the chiropractor who wants to crack my neck. Give me solid evidence-based medicine that is proven to work.

I’m also going to leave this here. It’s worth the ten minutes and change.

It’s Tim Minchin’s “Storm”. Y’all are slippin’! :smiley:

47

First Jackmannii, Dr. Sampson was addressed indirectly in the before- mentioned Barrett back-story. In the National Council Against Health Fraud Inc. v. King Bio(2001) case, NCAHF, that both were members, they “reluctantly” testified for. Why reluctantly? The NCAHF position was as the Plaintiff in a fraud case, they didn’t have to prove anything; the Defendants had to show they didn’t operate fraudulently. The lower court and the appellate court (that NCAHF later appealed the case too) both said otherwise.* The Plaintiff is always required to show wrong-doing; the Defendant is always assumed innocent until proven otherwise. *

It was after this decision of the court that both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett testified as “expert”. In the lower court ruling the judge ruled that neither testimony qualified them as “expert”. Dr. Sampson had taught a course in the quackery of alternative medicine, but most of his instruction was based on his education as a doctor. He had no training in pharmaceuticals and didn’t know any government regulations. He didn’t have any knowledge of what requirements FDA had for King Bio’s products and was unaware that that the FDA has a board that set the requirement for products similar to the defendants. King Bio’s productions were all approved by the FDA.

The judge really took issue with Dr. Barrett because he said… he was not only an “expert”, but a consultant for the FDA. But in testimony, his “expertise” of FDA matter was simply writing complaint/advice letters and emails to FDA officials. He was not employed by the FDA and, never was apparently contacted by the FDA, so the term “expert” or “consultant” doesn’t apply. Like Dr. Simpson, he claimed he had the education to identify fraud, but could not explain why equally educated doctors for the Defendant and the FDA have different opinions.

Barrett, Sampson, and NCAHF lost at the district court level and lost unanimously at the Appellant level.

Seeing this came up, Barrett is also famous for his role in the Barrett v Rosenthal(2006) California Supreme Court case. In this embarrassing case, Dr. Barrett and two others sued a Oregon woman that had posted unflattering statements about Dr. Barrett and another Plaintiff (neither the courts nor the third plaintiff can explain his inclusion). For reasons never explained, the case was filed in California, which has a very popular anti-SLAPP law which protected free speech rights on the internet. Barrett’s claim was the internet should be treated like newspapers and magazines which require publishers to provide proof before publishing. AOL, Microsoft, Time-Warner, Disney, and almost every major internet entity submitted briefs supporting Rosenthal. Barrett lost at the district level, unanimously at the appellate level, and again unanimously before the California Supreme Court. In all three courts, the justices said that even without the anti-SLAPP law, in dealing with comments made about Barrett, free speech was the law of the land.

In 1999, Dr. Barrett’s website ‘quackwatch’ was mentioned by the federal government on “places citizens could find health information online.” Dr. Barrett could have walked away with that honor; but he didn’t. He claimed that the Department of Health and Human Services endorsed his claims; which they were quick to deny. As the HHS said , his website was recommended because he had information while others didn’t…not necessarily because it was right. It was the following year Dr. Barrett sued Rosenthal, and the year after that, King Bio. When people started to investigate him and his website(s), neither is credible.

Cecil linked to quackwatch in a March 2000 articleon acupuncture. Penn & Teller showed him during a Bullsh*t episode on alternative medicine in 2003. But that was then; now would they really benefit for his support? I don’t think so.

And lastly, Dr. Barrett doesn’t claim he has a license; he claims he is retired and can easily get it renewed. Again both Pennsylvania and North Carolina said it isn’t simply paying a fee.

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
Regarding Vioxx, I refer you to easily found online sources for info on the VIGOR study, the New England Journal of Medicine’s role in criticizing Merck and other medical community action that brought this story to public attention.
[/QUOTE]

No it did not; in fact the *New England Journal of Medicine *was criticized for withhold data that would have proven a problem for Merck. The NEJM study was published in 2000, the Circulation study in 2004. When did Vioxx get recalled? 2004.

[QUOTE=MsRobyn]
To cut through the shit, woo sells, and it sells big.
[/QUOTE]

The purpose of a Congressional hearing, or any hearing, is to solicit testimony to facilitate government function. In more commonly used diction, “it’s to gain information; not for political speech making.” Dr. Oz apparently knew what he was going to be questioned about and brought studies to verify his original claims. Senator McCaskill spent most of her allotted time directed at Dr. Oz, while her two main colleagues did divide their questions up among the other witnesses. Re-watching the hearing, the other three Senators present, directed most of their questions to online advertisement, just as the ad featuring Dr. Oz illustrated. The FTC representative stated the illegal green coffee marketer was a fly-by-night advertiser. Senator McCaskill was the only member given three rounds of questions, of which two was criticism of Dr. Oz, not questions. One other senator reminded everyone that as politicians they are very aware of how sound bites and clips can be taken out of context. To say he sells woo, isn’t claimed by any of the other senators or committee witnesses. Dr. Oz said that maybe he needs to name specific manufacturers and retailers in the future, which the senators agree along with the FTC representative in her non-official opinion. Senator McCaskill complained in her opening statement that the media was asked to attend, but they declined. The slight detail missing was that CBS News reported on the green coffee bean story 6 months before the green coffee episode of the Dr. Oz show. ABC News and Fox News featured the story online at the time also. Would she have taken on CBS, ABC or Fox if they had come to the hearing?

[QUOTE=MsRobyn]
Yale, to use the cite you initially gave, plans to conduct serious, rigorous research into the efficacy of SCAM therapies.
[/QUOTE]

From the website: In November 2006, Yale joined the Consortium of Academic Health Centers for Integrative Medicine in an acknowledgement of the commitment of individuals at Yale to education, research, and clinical practice of complementary and alternative medicine.

If after nearly 8 years, Yale and the other 56 universities haven’t been able to conclusively prove that alternative medicine, like acupuncture is bogus…one of two stories are possible…either Yale and these other “5” star schools(Harvard, Columbia, Georgetown, Stanford etc.) don’t do a good job of teaching research OR they have found something in alternative medicine that does work. I’ll leave it to you to make the call.

[QUOTE=MsRobyn]
Supplements and most devices receive no such regulation.
[/QUOTE]

As mentioned in the King Bio case and the Senate Hearing you said you watched, that is not true. Supplements , and all natural products that state health claims, are regulated by the FDA. Even without a health claim, supplements and all natural “edible” products are classified as food products under FDA regulations. Along with the FDA, theFTC also regulations false claims.

From the National Institute of Health, of the Health and Human Services Department:
Dietary supplements—The manufacturer does not have to prove that the supplement is effective, unlike for drugs. The manufacturer can say that the product addresses a nutrient deficiency, supports health, or reduces the risk of developing a health problem, if that is true. If the manufacturer does make a claim, it must be followed by the statement “This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.”

48

No, that’s not true. It’s stating the opinions of Steven Novella and David Gorski, along like with dozens of high-quality citations to back up those opinions. Look, it’s not for some cult of personality that I keep going back to SBM or Respectful Insolence, it’s because these people are very good at what they do. And what they do is analyze the peer-reviewed literature and make well-grounded statements based on it. It is entirely reasonable to take their articles, when they are grounded in the scientific literature, as authoritative sources. I welcome you to find any example where either Novella or Gorski made any statement about the state of the science on an issue without either a disclaimer that it was a hunch, or backing it up either with their own specific field of expertise (sometimes, Gorski appeals not to the peer-reviewed literature but to his own experience as a clinical oncologist specializing in breast cancer, and I am heavily inclined to trust him when he does) or the peer-reviewed literature.

Yes, and both he and Gorski have bemoaned the forward march of “Quackademic medicine”. Unfortunately, this just keeps popping up, usually due to public pressure.

This is the point where I started to wonder if you were actually serious. “Renowned” is not a great word to use when talking about Deepak Chopra. More like “infamous”. Chopra’s entire schtick is completely bastardizing quantum physics to mean what he’d like it to mean, then drawing conclusions from there. Anyone with even a basic understanding of quantum physics can point out dozens of errors per minute in his typical bullshit. I’m actually kind of wondering if Martymer81 ever ran Chopra through the “30-second stupid test”; I wonder if he’d break SpiritScience’s record of 11.

And then there’s Dr. Oz. Dr. Oz is a world-renowned heart surgeon, one of the best in the world at what he does. He also peddles an unfathomable amount of bullshit on his TV show. He invited Mike Fucking Adams to do a segment on toxicity. I’m sorry, but when you’re inviting the owner of NaturalNews.com to do a segment on your show and the sole purpose is not “Oh my god, what kind of deluded douchebag are you?”, then you’re running afoul of Scopie’s General Law - because you took this person/idea/claim/website seriously, your critical thinking faculties are clearly so woefully compromised you that you do not deserve to be taken seriously until you explicitly repudiate that position and do a hell of a lot of work showing us that you’re willing and able to actually think again. I mean, just to make this clear - inviting Mike Adams on your show is like inviting Ken Ham on your show, or inviting David Duke (the holocaust denier). That’s the level of stupid we’re dealing with. Except that David Duke and Ken Ham never led anyone to reject real medicine, causing suffering and death. Mike Adams has fucking blood on his hands.

No, and neither does being a clinical oncologist, like Gorski. When I started reading Gorski’s other blog (Respectful Insolence), I had no idea who he was. His pseudonym didn’t tell me anything. The reason I came to trust him was not “he’s a doctor”. Dr. Oz is a doctor, and deserves to be thrown as far as his fans trust him (preferably with a catapult off a cliff). No, I trust these people because they make sound, solid arguments and back them up with incredibly strong sources. There is absolutely no need to appeal to their credentials. Just appeal to, you know, their actual material. The only thing that’s relevant.

This argument barely even merits a rolleyes. Yeah, a single member of the staff was unable to convince the leadership of his college to undo what was likely a fairly expensive decision, made for god only knows what reasons. For all I know, they could have opened an acupuncture studies course because “screw ethics, we wanna get paid”. All the peer-reviewed research in the world ain’t gonna reverse that decision. No, Novella is an expert based on his decades of research and years of writing well-informed, well-backed and almost uniformly accurate science articles. On a similar vein:

I don’t give a shit! I don’t think anyone else gives a shit who Dr. Stephen Barrett is! Unless he’s a guy with a long track record of bad advice (like, say, Dr. Oz), I couldn’t give two shits who runs my sources! Could be a neo-nazi for all I care! What matters is what he says and how he backs it up. And as with Novella and Gorski, he writes informative, laymen-level scientific articles backed up by extensive peer-reviewed research! Who cares if he still has his medical license? It by no means makes his site a lousy source!

All you have to offer against these sources are lousy ad hominem attacks - ad hominem attacks that make no sense to begin with!

49

Once again, wissdok has posted nothing to validate the claims made by the chiropractor in the OP, nothing to challenge the accuracy of any of Quackwatch’s articles on chiropractic (or any other subject), and nothing to debunk the conclusions of Science-Based Medicine about acupuncture. Instead he’s haranguing us about all this peripheral garbage regarding qualifications and licensure.

By the way, interesting (if irrelevant) that you bring up the Rosenthal case. As I recall, Barrett sued her for reposting false claims that he was “delicensed”. While not defending her making the accusations, the court decided that people should not be liable for reposting such lies on their website, and that Barrett was somehow engaging in a SLAPP suit for defending his reputation. Go figure.
And since you can’t drop these stupid and irrelevant insinuations about Barrett not having a medical license and not being able to get one, here’s the Pennsylvania Medical Board site for looking up licensed practitioners. Enter Stephen Barrett’s name (full name Stephen Joel Barrett) and you will find that he has an active Pennsylvania license in good standing (retired status), no violations. So I suggest you drop this angle. It is making you look as bad as all the other quackery apologists who continue with anti-Barrett smear campaigns.

wissdok, in going after Dr. Barrett on a personal basis, seems blissfully unaware that Quackwatch is far more than Barrett’s articles. The site features many articles from other medical specialists and health professionals, which cite quality research and other good evidence in support of their conclusions. Maybe wissdok will now go after the authors of those articles (I heard a rumor that one of them failed to return library books on time and that another was cited by his HOA for not mowing his lawn often enough).

50

Not to mention arguing ex culo and basically agreeing with me on the roles of the FDA vs. the FTC while not really understanding the distinction.

Ad hominem attacks and argumenta ex culo are what you use when you can’t argue on the merits.

51

There’s a timely article out today on Respectful Insolence regarding the pro-chiropractic meme that the Journal of the American Medical Association has endorsed chiropractic treatment of low back pain as a first-line option. It turns out that the one mention of chiropractic in the article is considerably less effusive than what chiros are claiming:

"Many treatments are available for low back pain. Often exercises and physical therapy can help. Some people benefit from chiropractic therapy or acupuncture. Sometimes medications are needed, including analgesics (painkillers) or medications that reduce inflammation. Surgery is not usually needed but may be considered if other therapies have failed. "

Gee, what a ringing endorsement. :dubious:

This follows a pattern of chiros making misleading statements about research and journal articles that are touted as supporting their claims. Such articles typically appear in chiro journals, involve case studies or small patient populations with limited followup and their conclusions are misrepresented.*

*one such study is used to claim that chiro neck manipulation is effective in relieving hypertension. The study (in a chiro journal) involved relatively few participants who were studied short-term, and moreover involved a specialized technique which is not used by chiros in general practice. As to what mysterious physiologic mechanism is involved in lowering blood pressure through neck cracking, well, that remains a mystery.

52

That is actually quite astounding to me. When did this happen? Acupuncture? Seriously?

I can see the eventual caving over Chiropractic, since there is no doubt possible benefits, but acupuncture? Wtf?

53

There have been lots of studies and some promising findings. Also, many claims have not proven to be useful.

54

For chronic low back pain, there’s a Cochrane review supporting some efficacy compared to no treatment at all (the general phenomenon of laying on of hands being beneficial may be at work). Overall benefit seems to be small, and no more than other modalities.

55

Since we’re talking about accupuncture, here’s links to a couple of columns that Cecil has written about it -

From 1984:

Do “auto-acupressure” and acupunture work?

Which concludes that it might be worth studying but had yet to be proven.
The second column, from 2000 is even less encouraging.

Does acupuncture really work?

56

I know a few people – Westerners and Asians alike – who swear they have received some level of real benefit from acupuncture. I don’t like arguing with them about it, but I suspect it may be a placebo effect.

57

Um, what?

That’s an unusual middle name.

Um, what?

58

Currently available as a combination product (phentermine and topiramate extended-release), Qsymia, approved in July 2012.

59

Hmm, need to work on communicating more clearly. The 30-second stupid test involves taking a 30-second clip from a person and then counting the number of things they get wrong and the number of statements that are just flat-out dumb.

I refer to him as Mike Fucking Adams to emphasize the point that this person is really really really dumb.

Scopie’s General Law is a thing I kinda made up, described as the generalization of Scopie’s Law, right after the statement:
“because you took this person/idea/claim/website seriously, your critical thinking faculties are clearly so woefully compromised you that you do not deserve to be taken seriously until you explicitly repudiate that position and do a hell of a lot of work showing us that you’re willing and able to actually think again”

60

I recently transcribed an interview with a drug counselor who swears by acupuncture as a way to get a client to detox from opioids instantly. Of course, the client is also receiving Suboxone or methadone at the same time, so I’m inclined to think that it’s more the Suboxone or methadone than it is the acupuncture. In fact, the one client who had a miracle cure from the acupuncture never came back for follow-up care, so it’s unknown whether the guy stayed clean, found some other support group, or what.

I’ve also worked on a project involving something called the Emotional Freedom Technique, which involves “tapping” on various points along the upper body. During each tapping session, the person uses certain statements that follow the formula “Even though I have this problem, I deeply and completely accept myself”. The project involved EFT applied to weight loss, and if someone does this instead of eating a candy bar, then it’s done something positive for that person. There is no empirical evidence that this works, but some people may find it soothing enough to prevent impulsive behavior due to emotional stress. All the same, I wouldn’t rely on this as a substitute for evidence-based therapy with a competent counselor.

I’m now very clear that I don’t take on projects involving SCAM therapies. It’s more important that I be able to look at myself in the mirror.