I came across this “meme” on Facebook today:

“The very concept of alternative medicine exists to create a double standard where the rules of science and evidence are stood on their head specifically to manufacture the result that is desired by cranks, charlatans, snake-oil salesmen, and self-proclaimed gurus. There is no alternative medicine. There is just medicine. Either it works or it doesn’t work.”
-Steven Novella
The inevitable retort was: but what about some “natural/traditional” medicines that have not been thoroughly studied. These might work. So, surely it’s an unfair comparison?
My response to that is this:
When people bullshit based on their gut feelings, they can also be right sometimes. It’s only when someone looks into it do we know whether it is actually fact or fiction. “Folk medicine” and natural products may have good (or bad!) effects but it is wrong to imply that they are medicine until we know whether/when they work.
In the same way that an opinion is not an “alternative fact”, a natural product that somebody thinks might do something is not “alternative medicine”.
Then, of course, there is the less generous - but even more apt - comparison of bare-faced lies with bare-faced fraudulent treatments like homeopathy - things demonstrably false that are being badged at truth under the label “alternative”.
I just hope that the war on “Alternative Facts” is more successful than the war on “Alternative Medicine”. The real problem with taking action based on made up stuff is that reality doesn’t care how well-meaning you are, or how much you want it to be true. Hopefully, America will not suffer too much at the hands of reality before Trump and/or his cronies realise this.
thanks
ReplyDeleteI just read your post comparing "Alternative Facts" with "Alternative Medicine," and it definitely sparked some thoughts. Steven Novella's quote about alternative medicine creating a double standard in the realm of science and evidence is quite striking. It brings to the forefront the importance of rigorous scientific validation in medicine. I do think, however, it's crucial to differentiate between outright fraudulent practices and the potential value of unexplored traditional or holistic medicine methods. It's true that some natural or traditional remedies may hold therapeutic benefits that science hasn't fully studied yet. Your analogy of opinions not being "alternative facts" similarly applies here; a natural product thought to be beneficial isn't "alternative medicine" until proven effective. This underscores the need for continued research and critical evaluation in the field of natural medicine. The comparison of unproven treatments to bare-faced lies is a bit harsh but points to the necessity of separating fact from fiction in healthcare. Thanks for the thought-provoking post!
ReplyDelete