Re: Magnetic therapies

a_weisman_at_yahoo.com
Date: 02/09/05 

Date: 9 Feb 2005 06:47:21 -0800

Spontaneous Remission and the Placebo Effect
http://quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/placebo.html

Spontaneous Remission and the Placebo Effect
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
When someone feels better after using a product or procedure, it is
natural to credit whatever was done. However, this is unwise. Most
ailments are self-limiting, and even incurable conditions can have
sufficient day-to-day variation to enable quack methods to gain large
followings. Taking action often produces temporary relief of symptoms
(a placebo effect). In addition, many products and services exert
physical or psychologic effects that users misinterpret as evidence
that their problem is being cured. These "Dr. Feelgood" modalities
include pharmacologically active herbal products, quack formulas
adulterated with prescription drugs, colonic irrigations (which some
people enjoy), bodywork, and meditation. Scientific experimentation is
almost always necessary to establish whether health methods are really
effective. Thus it is extremely important for consumers to understand
the concepts of spontaneous remission and the placebo effect.

Spontaneous Remission
Recovery from illness, whether it follows self-medication, treatment by
a scientific practitioner, or treatment by an unscientific
practitioner, may lead individuals to conclude that the treatment
received was the cause of the return to good health. As noted by
Medical historian James Harvey Young, Ph.D.:

John Doe does not usually realize that most ailments are self-limiting
and improve with time regardless of treatment. When a symptom goes away
after he doses himself with a remedy, he is likely to credit the remedy
with curing him. He does not realize that he would have gotten better
just as quickly if he had done nothing! Thousands of well-meaning John
and Jane Does have boosted the fame of folk remedies and have signed
sincere testimonials for patent medicines, crediting them instead of
the body's recuperative power for a return to well-being. . . .

The unscientific healer does not need to observe the restraints of
reputable medicine. Where true medical science is complex, the quack
can oversimplify. . . . Where ailments are self-limiting, the quack
makes nature his secret ally [1].

It is commonly said that if you treat a cold it will disappear in a
week, but if you leave it alone it will last for seven days. Even many
serious diseases have ups and downs. Rheumatoid arthritis and multiple
sclerosis are prime examples. On rare occasions, even cancer can
inexplicably disappear (although most testimonials for quack cancer
remedies are based on faulty original diagnosis or simultaneous
administration of effective treatment).

Quackery's victims are not the only ones who can be fooled by the
placebo effect, spontaneous remissions, and other coincidental events.
The gratitude and adulation of people who think they have been helped
can even persuade charlatans that their methods are effective!

The Placebo Effect
The power of suggestion has been demonstrated by many investigators in
a variety of settings. In a classroom, for example, a professor sprayed
plain water about the room and asked the students to raise their hands
as soon as they detected an odor. Seventy-three percent managed to
smell a nonexistent odor.

Persons with a dominant or persuasive personality often have
considerable impact on others through their ability to create
confidence, which enhances suggestibility. Many individuals who are
taken in by a charlatan later tell their doctors, "But he talked to me;
he explained things; he was so nice."

Individuals who are psychologically susceptible to suggestion often
feel better under the influence of counseling or reassurance. Several
years ago, an airline flight attendant told me, "I take a multivitamin
pill that Consumer Reports says is useless. But I don't care. It makes
me happy."

Gullibility and wishful thinking are common human characteristics.
People are willing to believe in untrue things in varying ways and to
varying degrees. Even scientifically sophisticated people may respond
to the power of suggestion.

In medicine the effect of suggestion is referred to as the "placebo
effect." The Latin word placebo means "I shall please." A placebo
effect is a beneficial response to a substance, device, or procedure
that cannot be accounted for on the basis of pharmacologic or other
direct physical action. Feeling better when the physician walks into
the room is a common example.

A placebo may be used in medicine to satisfy a patient that something
is being done. By lessening anxiety, placebo action may alleviate
symptoms caused by the body's reaction to tension (psychosomatic
symptoms). In certain circumstances, a lactose tablet (sugar pill) may
relieve not only anxiety but also pain, nausea, vomiting, palpitations,
shortness of breath, and other symptoms. The patient expects the
"medication" to cause improvement, and sometimes it does.

Many studies suggest that placebos can relieve a broad range of
symptoms. In many disorders, one third or more of patients will get
relief from a placebo. Temporary relief has been demonstrated, for
example, in arthritis, hay fever, headache, cough, high blood pressure,
premenstrual tension, peptic ulcer, and even cancer. The psychologic
aspects of many disorders also work to the healer's advantage. A large
percentage of symptoms either have a psychologic component or do not
arise from organic disease. Hence, treatment offering some lessening of
tension can often help. A sympathetic ear or reassurance that no
serious disease is involved may prove therapeutic by itself.
Psychologist Barry Beyerstein, Ph.D., has observed:

Pain is partly a sensation . . . and partly an emotion. . . . Anything
that can allay anxiety, redirect attention, reduce arousal, foster a
sense of control, or lead to . . . reinterpretation of symptoms can
alleviate the agony component of pain. Modern pain clinics put these
strategies to use every day. Successful quacks and faith healers
typically have charismatic personalities that make them adept at
influencing these psychological variables that can modulate pain. . . .
But we must be careful that purely symptomatic relief does not divert
people from proven remedies until it is too late for them to be
effective [2].

Confidence in the treatment -- on the part of the patient and the
practitioner -- makes it more likely that a placebo effect will occur.
But the power of suggestion may cause even a nonbeliever to respond
favorably. The only requirement for a placebo effect is the awareness
that something has been done. It is not possible to predict accurately
or easily a particular patient's reaction to a placebo at a particular
moment. However, the psychologic predisposition to respond positively
to placebos is present to some extent in most people. Some are very
likely to obtain relief from placebos in a wide variety of situations,
whereas others are very unlikely to do so. Most people's response lies
somewhere inbetween.

Another factor that can mislead people is selective affirmation -- a
tendency to look for positive responses when improvement is expected.
As former National Council Aghainst Health Fraud president William T.
Jarvis, Ph.D., has noted:

A culturally significant setting can also produce a potent effect, as
folk healers know well. Effective settings can be as divergent as the
trappings of an oriental herb shop to Asians, a circle of witchcraft
paraphernalia to a primitive tribesman, or the atmosphere of a modern
clinic to a modern urban American. Social expectations can also play a
role, as occurs in stoic cultures where people are taught to endure
pain and suffering without complaining. . . .

Operant conditioning can occur . . . when behavior is rewarded. . . .
Thus, people with a history of favorable responses to treatment are
more apt to react well to the act of treatment [3].

Moreover, says Dr. Jarvis:

People suffering from chronic symptoms are often depressed, and
depression often produces symptoms that the patient attributes to the
underlying disease. If the quack's promises make the patient feel
hopeful, the depressive symptoms may resolve, leading the patient to
conclude -- at least temporarily -- that the quack's approach has been
effective against the disease [4].

Responses to the treatment setting can also be negative ("nocebo
effects"). In one experiment, for example, some subjects who were
warned of possible side effects of a drug were given injections of a
placebo instead. Many of them reported dizziness, nausea, vomiting, and
even mental depression. A recent review of 109 double-blind drug trials
found that the overall incidence of adverse events in healthy
volunteers during placebo administration was 19% [5].

Placebo responses, such as feeling less pain or more energy, do not
affect the actual course of the disease. Thus placebo responses can
obscure real disease, which can lead to delay in obtaining appropriate
diagnosis or treatment.

The placebo effect is not limited to drugs but may also result from
procedures [6]. Devices and physical techniques often have a
significant psychologic impact. Chiropractors, naturopaths, and various
other nonmedical practitioners use heat, light, diathermy,
hydrotherapy, manipulation, massage, and a variety of gadgets. In
addition to any physiologic effects, their use can exert a psychologic
force that may be reinforced by the relationship between the patient
and the practitioner. Of course, devices and procedures used by
scientific practitioners can also have placebo effects.

Ethical Considerations
Doctors are confronted by many people who complain of tiredness or a
variety of vague symptoms that are reactions to nervous tension. Far
too often, instead of finding out what is bothering them, doctors tell
them to take a tonic, a vitamin, or some other type of placebo.

A recent study has challenged the widely held view that the placebo
effect is a major factor in the outcome of clinical trials. Most
placebo-controlled trials compare the active treatment with a placebo,
not with no treatment. This design cannot distinguish an effect of
placebo from the natural course of the disease, regression to the mean
(the tendency for random increases or decreases to be followed by
observations closer to the average), or the effects of other factors.
After analyzing 114 randomized trials that had a "no-treatment" group
in addition to active treatment and placebo groups, the authors
concluded:

Placebos appeared to produce modest benefit in studies of pain and in
other studies where the outcome being measured was similarly
subjective.
Some of the reported benefit may be the result of placebos may be the
result of patients wishing to please their doctors.
There is no justifiable placebo use outside of clinical trials [7].
An accompanying editorial stated that placebo use should be sharply
reduced but may still be justified in carefully selected situations
where pain relief is needed [8]. The study also casts doubt on the
widely promoted notion that "alternative methods" may work by
stimulating a placebo effect

Quacks who rely on the placebo effect pretend that (a) they know what
they are doing, (b) they can tell what is wrong with you, and (c) their
treatment is effective for just about everything. Many of their
patients play the equivalent of Russian roulette. Medical doctors who
use vitamins as placebos may not be as dangerous, but they encourage
people to habitually use products they don't need. Because most people
who use placebos do not get relief from them, their use is also a
financial rip-off.

References
Young JH. Why quackery persists. In Barrett S, Jarvis WT, editors. The
Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America. Amherst, N.Y.,
1993, Prometheus Books.
Beyerstein BL. Testing claims of therapeutic efficacy. Rational
Enquirer 7(4):1-2, 8, 1995.
Jarvis WT. Arthritis: Folk remedies and quackery. Nutrition Forum
7:1-3, 1990.
Jarvis WT. Personal communication to Dr. Stephen Barrett, Dec 18, 2001.

Rosensweig P and others. The placebo effect in healthy volunteers:
Influence of experimental conditions on the adverse events profile
during phase I studies. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
54:578-583, 1993.
Turner JA and others. The importance of placebo effects in pain
treatment and research. JAMA 271:1609-1614, 1994.
Hrobjartsson A, Gotzsche PC. Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of
clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment. NEJM
344:1594-1602, 2001.
Bailar JC III. The powerful placebo and the Wizard of Oz. NEJM
344:1630-1632, 2001.
Testimony against the Access to Medical Treatment Act (H.R. 746)
http://quackwatch.org/07PoliticalActivities/moore.html
Testimony against the
Access to Medical Treatment Act (H.R. 746)
Thomas J. Moore
On February 4 and 12, 1998, the House of Representatives Government
Reform and Oversight Committee held hearings on the Access to Medical
Treatment Act, a bill intended to prevent government "interference"
with unscientific practitioners. Mr. Moore was the only witness who
testified against the bill. This was his prepared statement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should consumers, especially those with a serious or life threatening
illness, have the right to any drug or alternative medicine even though
it has not been proven safe and effective and approved by the Food and
Drug Administration?

Let me tell a story of what could happen if that were the case. In this
age of media hype, it is plausible that literally millions of Americans
could be persuaded to take a pill every day that they hoped would
prevent cancer -- especially if it included some natural ingredient or
a vitamin.

Suppose that long after millions of people were popping this cancer
prevention pill, proper, expensive randomized clinical trials were
finally conducted to see if the hoped for benefits in fact existed.

Now suppose that those clinical trials-the only real scientific
evidence we have whether drugs work or not -- showed that these
anti-cancer pills either didn't work at all -- or actually caused lung
cancer. Millions of Americans would be spending their hard earned money
on a remedy that at best was ineffective-and at worst could give them
cancer.

Am I telling you a fanciful, alarmist story? This is a true story. It
already happened -- and the treatment involved was beta-carotene
supplements. Like so many new drug treatments, it sounded promising but
proved to be worthless or harmful when tested [1,2].

Humans have dreamed of powerful medicines since the dawn of history.
But for most of the last seven thousand years consumers were mostly
victims of hazardous, poisonous, or merely unpleasant drugs. The era of
modern beneficial drugs began only a few decades ago when society began
to insist that drugs be tested for safety and efficacy in well
controlled clinical investigations. Real progress began only when we
used randomized clinical trials to separate beneficial drugs from those
that were worthless or harmful.

This morning you have heard some dramatic stories from individuals who
believe they were greatly helped -- perhaps saved -- by a treatment
that is not available in the United States. The question therefore is
should Americans have access to a medical treatment if there are
individuals who can personally testify that it is valuable?

The most simple test case would be a remedy for obesity. Here seems to
be a treatment every consumer can judge. Either you lose weight or you
don't. Suppose for our test case that the FDA had approved the drugs-so
they had been subject to at least modest levels of safety testing.
Should not then the consumer-and not government regulators or health
authorities-be the judge this treatment?

You all ought to know the answer to this question. This episode also
happened, and the result may turn out to be one of the greatest drug
disasters that our nation has experienced. Last September the diet
drugs Pondimin and Redux were hastily withdrawn after the FDA received
evidence that an astonishing 31% of the people tested showed some
evidence of damage to their heart valves [3,4]. At the time, more than
5 million Americans were taking these drugs.

Did the consumers notice? Could they judge for themselves? They could
not. Until it became very severe, the heart damage had no symptoms. Did
their doctors notice? They did not. Pondimin was on the market for more
than 20 years before two alert medical workers in North Dakota noticed
something suspicious. What is the first lesson of the diet drug
debacle?

Not only does it take systematic testing to discover whether drugs
work, it also takes systematic scientific study to discover serious
adverse effects that are potentially harming millions of people. If we
don't have the proper safety system in place, people will be harmed for
years or decades. In their potential to harm millions of people there
are few rivals for drug treatments -- whether they are mainstream
prescription drugs or alternative remedies. This is exactly why society
has erected the safeguards now being examined in this hearing.

Another aspect of the issue today is more difficult. Should people with
advanced cancer, or Parkinsons Disease or full-blown AIDS have the
right to any treatment they choose? Some of these people might not live
long enough for the kind of drug testing I believe so important to
protecting the public. Should they not be entitled to take any risks
they choose?

On the surface, the case for individual liberty seems compelling.
However, another example will illustrate the dark problems underlying
this seemingly straightforward idea.

Suppose you are dying of cancer, and I offer you this ghoulish shell
game. In one of my hands, I have hidden a treatment that might save
your life. In the other hand, is a quack medicine that will make you so
sick you can hardly get out of bed, and will hasten your death. I can
give you a free choice. But which hand holds the lifesaving drug? The
left hand? Or the right hand?

This is not a meaningful choice. Without extensive drug testing we just
can't tell which hand holds a dangerous poison, and which conceals the
life saving drug. Without proper testing even a potentially life saving
treatment may be harmful if given in the wrong dose, or to the wrong
patients. I want people to have choices too. But they should be real
choices, involving scientific data about how much harm and good various
treatment alternatives can be expected to achieve.

We have only one proven solution. We need public policies to promote
more drug testing, not still more new loopholes that could endanger the
heath and safety of millions of people.

Some may ask, "But aren't people going denied a life-saving treatment
for the several years it takes for human testing and drug evaluation?"
My answer is that we don't know that it is a life-saving drug until it
is tested. Even if proven life-saving, we can't truly hope to save
lives until we have done enough testing to know how to use it properly.
The history of modern drug treatment includes many cases of valuable
drugs that proved ineffective or harmful because they were used in the
wrong patients, or at the wrong time in the progression of a disease
[5,6]. Until it is tested, and we know how to use it, a drug cannot
properly considered a life-saving treatment.

Alternative medicines pose special problems that deserve the attention
of this committee. They are falling between the cracks of the system we
have devised to search for new medicines. Large drug companies are
expected to invest millions of dollars in the elaborate drug testing we
wisely require. In return they are granted patents that are so
lucrative that a single blockbuster drug can sustain an entire
multinational pharmaceutical giant. This system has provided many
beneficial medicines, but at a price. Only large firms can afford the
extensive testing required by law. Large organizations tend to follow
conventional thinking; daring innovators often work alone or in small
firms. It is certainly possible there are neglected therapies that
involve common molecules or natural ingredients that cannot be readily
patented. Also there may be promising scientific avenues of advance
that were ignored or abandoned by mainstream medical research and its
partners in the pharmaceutical industry. The tiny office in the
National Institutes of Health devoted to alternative therapies doesn't
have even a fraction of the resources needed to investigate the most
promising leads.

What is needed is money and a structure to target research and assign
priorities. The funds could be come from general tax receipts -- as do
the funds for the National Institutes of Health. Or the research could
be financed by a small tax paid by industry. I believe that consumers
would be willing to pay an extra amount to insure they got a product
that might benefit their health rather than harming it. The policy
problem is to figure out how to get the necessary scientific testing
done. The solution is not to expose more Americans to untested and
possibly ineffective or harmful compounds.

Finally, I would like to address the issue of the FDA and experimental
cancer treatments. My main concern is that there is already too much
experimental treatment of cancer patients rather than not enough.

A survey by the General Accounting Office showed that 23% of all cancer
patients receive an experimental treatment; another GAO study estimated
that about 56 percent of cancer patients receive a drug for off-label
use -- which can be considered quasi-experimental use of an approved
drug [7,8]. Despite the billions we spend on research and treatment,
the mortality rate from cancer is higher today than it was in 1970,
despite dramatic declines in most other major causes of death [9]. The
use of so much experimental treatment may be one important reason we
have had such disappointing results. Does the U.S. Congress want to
expose more patients to experimental cancer agents without the
safeguards required for formal National Cancer Institute protocols or
human drug testing studies under FDA supervision?

Finally, some people seem to believe that heartless FDA bureaucrats are
somehow keeping valuable drugs away from people in life or death
situations. I have published articles and books filled with criticism
of the FDA, detailing many failings and numerous ways it could do a
better job. But I also am here to testify that after 20 years in
Washington I have not found a group of more capable public servants
more sincerely dedicated to protecting the American public. By the
large, they work at a thankless task under very difficult
circumstances, and I for one, have great respect for their efforts.

In conclusion, I believe the central issue before the committee today
is not access to treatment, but assuring that the proper and necessary
drug testing is conducted to insure that both mainstream medical
therapies and alternative medicines help rather than harm people. That
is easier said than done. But with sound public policies, we can move
towards this goal. However, if Congress abandons the essential
safeguards of drug testing, there is no limit to the harm that may
occur.

References
1. Omenn GS and others. Effects of a combination of beta carotene and
vitamin A on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. New England
Journal of Medicine 334:1150-1155, 1996.
2. Hennekens CH and others. Lack of effect of long-term supplementation
with beta carotene on the incidence of malignant neoplasms and
cardiovascular disease. New England Journal of Medicine 334:1145-1149,
1996.
3. HHS News. FDA Announces withdrawal of Fenfluramine and
Dexfenfluramine. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and
Drug Administration, Office of Public Affairs, September 15, 1997.
4. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug
Administration, Division of Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology. FDA
analysis of cardiac valvular dysfunction with use of appetite
suppressants. briefing paper. Undated.
5. Concorde Coordinating Committee. Concorde: MRC/ANRS randomized
double-blind controlled trial of immediate and deferred zidovudine in
symptom-free HIV infection. Lancet 343:871-881, 1994.
6. Echt, DS and others. Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving
Encainide, Flecainide or placebo. New England Journal of Medicine
324:781-788, 1991.
7. United States General Accounting Office. Off-Label Drugs: Initial
Results of a National Survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting
Office. GAO/PEMD-91-12BR, February, 1991.
8. United States General Accounting Office. Off-Label Drugs:
Reimbursement Policies Constrain Physicians in their Choice of Cancer
Therapies. Washington. D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office
GAO/PEMD-91-14, September. 1991.
9. Moore, TJ. Look at the mortality rates: The 'War on Cancer' has been
a bust. The Washington Post; July 23. 1997, editorial page.
10. Moore TJ. Deadly Medicine: Why Tens of Thousands of Heart Patients
Died in America's Worst Drug Disaster. New York: Simon & Schuster,
1995.
11. Moore, TJ. Prescription for Disaster. The Hidden Dangers in Your
Medicine Chest. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998.
About the Author
Mr. Moore, a senior fellow at the George Washington University's Center
for Health Policy Research, specializes in issues involving
prescription drug safety. His writings have appeared in many magazines
and newspapers. His most recent book is Prescription for Disaster: the
Hidden Dangers in Your Medicine Cabinet, an examination of the risks of
prescription drugs and the performance of the safety system intended to
control those risks. His previous book, Deadly Medicine: Why Tens of
Thousands of Heart Patients Died in America's Worst Drug Disaster, was
a case study exploring why a family of drugs for irregular heartbeats
was so widely used without researchers and regulators realizing the
drugs frequently caused cardiac arrest. He has testified before
Congress and lectured at universities and other research institutions
about drug safety and other issues involving the medical care system.
Before turning to full-time research and writing on health policy
issues in 1988, he was a national correspondent in Washington for the
Knight-Ridder newspaper chain. He also has worked on the staff of the
U.S. Senate.
Some Notes on the Nature of Science
http://quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/science.html
Some Notes on the Nature of Science
Joe Schwartz, Ph.D.
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
The scientific method offers an objective way to evaluate information
to determine what is false. The late astronomer Carl Sagan, Ph.D., has
pointed out that "Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a
body of facts [1].

A 1998 National Academy of Sciences book contains a superb chapter that
distinguishes between facts and theories and between scientific beliefs
and faith [2]. Although the book focuses on evolution, its reasoning is
equally applicable to health-related issues. The book states:

In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it
does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural
phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses.
. . .

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation.
But scientists can also use "fact" to mean something that has been
tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling
reason to keep testing or looking for examples. . . .

Usually "faith" refers to beliefs that are accepted without empirical
[observed] evidence. Most religions have tenets of faith. Science
differs from religion because it is the nature of science to test and
retest explanations against the natural world. Thus, scientific
explanations are likely to be built on and modified with new
information and new ways of looking at old information. This is quite
different from most religious beliefs.

Therefore, "belief" is really not an appropriate term to use in
science, because testing is such an important part of this way of
knowing. If there is a component of faith to science, it is the
assumption that the universe operates according to regularities. . . .
This "faith" is very different from religious faith.

The following ideas can help you evaluate information you encounter
about science and health.

Science is a truth-seeking process. It is not a collection of
unassailable "truths." It is, however, a self -correcting discipline.
Such corrections may take a long time -- the medical practice of
bloodletting went on for centuries before its futility was realized --
but as scientific knowledge accumulates, the chance of making
substantial errors decreases.
Certainty is elusive in science, and it is often hard to give
categorical "Yes" or "No" answers to scientific questions. To determine
whether bottled water is preferable to tap water, for example, one
would have to design a lifelong study of two large groups of people
whose lifestyles were similar in all respects except for the type of
water they consumed. This is virtually impossible. We therefore have to
rely on less-direct evidence in formulating many of our conclusions.
It may not be possible to predict all consequences of an action, no
matter how much advance research has been done. When
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were introduced as refrigerants, no one
could have predicted that 30 years later they would have an impact on
the ozone layer. If something undesirable happens, it is not
necessarily because someone has been negligent.
Any new finding should be examined with skepticism. Healthy skepticism
does not mean unwillingness to believe. Skeptics base their beliefs on
scientific proof and do not swallow information uncritically.
No major lifestyle change should be based on any one study. Results
should be independently confirmed by others. Keep in mind that science
does not proceed by "miracle breakthroughs" or "giant leaps." It plods
along, taking many small steps, slowly building towards a consensus.
Studies have to be carefully interpreted by experts in the field. An
association of two variables does not necessarily imply cause and
effect. As an extreme example, consider the strong association between
breast cancer and the wearing of skirts. Obviously, wearing skirts does
not cause the disease. Scientists, however, sometimes show an amazing
aptitude for coming up with inappropriate rationalizations for their
pet theories.
Repeating a false notion does not make it true. Many people are
convinced that sugar causes hyperactivity in children -- not because
they have examined studies to this effect but because they have heard
that it is so. In fact, a slate of studies has demonstrated that, if
anything, sugar has a calming effect on children.
Nonsensical lingo can sound very scientific. An ad for a type of algae
states that "the molecular structure of chlorophyll is almost the same
as that of hemoglobin, which is responsible for carrying oxygen
throughout the body. Oxygen is the prime nutrient and chlorophyll is
the central molecule for increasing oxygen available to your system."
This is nonsense. Chlorophyll does not transport oxygen in the blood.
There often are legitimate opposing views on scientific issues. But it
is incorrect to conclude that science cannot be trusted because for
every study there is all equal and opposite study. It is always
important to take into account who carried out a given study, how well
it was designed, and whether anyone stands to gain financially from the
results. Be mindful of who the "they" is in "they say that . . . ." In
many cases, what they say" is only gossip, inaccurately reported.
Animal studies are not necessarily relevant to humans, although they
may provide much valuable information. Penicillin, for example, is safe
for humans but toxic for guinea pigs. Rats do not require vitamin C as
a dietary nutrient but humans do. Feeding high doses of a suspected
toxin to test animals for short periods of time may not accurately
reflect the effect on humans exposed to tiny doses over long periods of
time.
Whether a substance is a poison or a remedy depends on the dosage. It
makes no sense to talk about the effects of certain substances on the
body without talking about amounts. Licking an aspirin tablet will do
nothing for a headache, but swallowing two tablets will make the
headache go away. Swallowing a whole bottle of pills will make the
patient go away.
"Chemical" is not a dirty word. Chemicals are the building blocks of
our world. They are neither good nor bad. Nitroglycerin can alleviate
the pain of angina or blow up a building. The choice is ours.
Furthermore, there is no relation between the risk posed by a substance
and the complexity of its name. "Dihydrogen monoxide" is just water.
Nature is not benign. The deadliest toxins known, such as ricin from
castor beans or botulin from the Clostridium botulinum bacterium, are
perfectly natural. "Natural" does not equal "safe," and "synthetic"
does not equal "dangerous." The properties of any substance are
determined by its molecular structure, not by whether it was
synthesized by a chemist in a lab or by nature in a plant.
Perceived risks are often different from real risks. Food poisoning
from microbial contamination is a far greater health risk than trace
pesticide residues oil fruits and vegetables.
The human body is incredibly complex. Our health is determined by many
variables, which include genetics, our diet, our mother's diet during
pregnancy, stress, level of exercise, exposure to microbes, exposure to
occupational hazards, and pure luck.
While diet clearly plays a role in the promotion of good health, the
effectiveness of specific foods or nutrients in the treatment of
diseases is usually overstated. Individual foods are not good or bad,
although overall diet may be described as such. The wider the variety
of foods consumed, the smaller the chance that important nutrients will
be lacking. There is universal agreement among scientists that a high
consumption of fruits and vegetables is beneficial.
About 80% of illnesses are self-limiting and will resolve in response
to almost any kind of treatment. Often, a remedy will receive
undeserved credit. Anecdotal evidence is unreliable, because positive
results are much more likely to be reported than negative ones.
There is no goose that lays golden eggs. In other words, if something
sounds too good to be true, it probably is. As H.L. Mencken once said,
"Every complex problem has a solution that is simple, direct,
plausible, and wrong."
References

Sagan C. The fine art of baloney detection. Parade Magazine, p 12­13,
Feb 1, 1987.
National Academy of Sciences Working Group on Teaching Evolution.
Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press, 1998.
_____________________
Dr. Schwarcz is director of McGill University's Office for Chemistry
and Society. In addition to teaching chemistry at McGill, he hosts a
weekly "phone-in" show about chemistry on Montreal radio station CJAD,
writes a weekly column called "The Right Chemistry" in the Montreal
Gazette, and has a regular TV feature entitled "Joe's Chemistry Set" on
the Canadian Discovery Channel. The above list of 18 tips was adapted
from a section of his book Radar, Hula Hoops and Playful Pigs, a
collection of commentaries on the fascinating chemistry of everyday
life.

Why Bogus Therapies Often Seem to Work

http://quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/altbelief.html

Why Bogus Therapies Often Seem to Work
Barry L. Beyerstein, Ph.D.
Subtle forces can lead intelligent people (both patients and
therapists) to think that a treatment has helped someone when it has
not. This is true for new treatments in scientific medicine, as well as
for nostrums in folk medicine, fringe practices in "alternative
medicine," and the ministrations of faith healers.

Many dubious methods remain on the market primarily because satisfied
customers offer testimonials to their worth. Essentially, these people
say: "I tried it, and I got better, so it must be effective." The
electronic and print media typically portray testimonials as valid
evidence. But without proper testing, it is difficult or impossible to
determine whether this is so.

There are at least seven reasons why people may erroneously conclude
that an ineffective therapy works:

1. The disease may have run its natural course. Many diseases are
self-limiting. If the condition is not chronic or fatal, the body's own
recuperative processes usually restore the sufferer to health. Thus, to
demonstrate that a therapy is effective, its proponents must show that
the number of patients listed as improved exceeds the number expected
to recover without any treatment at all (or that they recover reliably
faster than if left untreated). Without detailed records of successes
and failures for a large enough number of patients with the same
complaint, someone cannot legitimately claim to have exceeded the
published norms for unaided recovery.

2. Many diseases are cyclical. Such conditions as arthritis, multiple
sclerosis, allergies, and gastrointestinal problems normally have "ups
and downs." Naturally, sufferers tend to seek therapy during the
downturn of any given cycle. In this way, a bogus treatment will have
repeated opportunities to coincide with upturns that would have
happened anyway.

3. The placebo effect may be responsible. Through suggestion, belief,
expectancy, cognitive reinterpretation, and diversion of attention,
patients given biologically useless treatments often experience
measurable relief. Some placebo responses produce actual changes in the
physical condition; others are subjective changes that make patients
feel better even though there has been no objective change in the
underlying pathology.

4. People who hedge their bets credit the wrong thing. If improvement
occurs after someone has had both "alternative" and science-based
treatment, the fringe practice often gets a disproportionate share of
the credit.

5. The original diagnosis or prognosis may have been incorrect.
Scientifically trained physicians are not infallible. A mistaken
diagnosis, followed by a trip to a shrine or an "alternative" healer,
can lead to a glowing testimonial for curing a condition that would
have resolved by itself. In other cases, the diagnosis may be correct
but the time frame, which is inherently difficult to predict, might
prove inaccurate.

6. Temporary mood improvement can be confused with cure. Alternative
healers often have forceful, charismatic personalities. To the extent
that patients are swept up by the messianic aspects of "alternative
medicine," psychological uplift may ensue.

7. Psychological needs can distort what people perceive and do. Even
when no objective improvement occurs, people with a strong
psychological investment in "alternative medicine" can convince
themselves they have been helped. According to cognitive dissonance
theory, when experiences contradict existing attitudes, feelings, or
knowledge, mental distress is produced. People tend to alleviate this
discord by reinterpreting (distorting) the offending information. If no
relief occurs after committing time, money, and "face" to an alternate
course of treatment (and perhaps to the worldview of which it is a
part), internal disharmony can result. Rather than admit to themselves
or to others that their efforts have been a waste, many people find
some redeeming value in the treatment. Core beliefs tend to be
vigorously defended by warping perception and memory. Fringe
practitioners and their clients are prone to misinterpret cues and
remember things as they wish they had happened. They may be selective
in what they recall, overestimating their apparent successes while
ignoring, downplaying, or explaining away their failures. The
scientific method evolved in large part to reduce the impact of this
human penchant for jumping to congenial conclusions. In addition,
people normally feel obligated to reciprocate when someone does them a
good turn. Since most "alternative" therapists sincerely believe they
are helping, it is only natural that patients would want to please them
in return. Without patients necessarily realizing it, such obligations
are sufficient to inflate their perception of how much benefit they
have received.

Buyer Beware!
The job of distinguishing real from spurious causal relationships
requires well designed studies and logical abstractions from large
bodies of data. Many sources of error can mislead people who rely on
intuition or informal reasoning to analyze complex events. Before
agreeing to any kind of treatment, you should feel confident that it
makes sense and has been scientifically validated through studies that
control for placebo responses, compliance effects, and judgmental
errors. You should be very wary if the "evidence" consists merely of
testimonials, self-published pamphlets or books, or items from the
popular media.

Related Topics
Spontaneous Remission and the Placebo Effect
Common Questions about Science and "Alternative" Health Methods
Why Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof
How Quackery Sells
Response to an Alt-Muddled Friend
__________________

Dr. Beyerstein, a member of the executive council of the Committee for
Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), is a
biopsychologist at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British
Columbia, Canada. A more detailed discussion of this topic is one of
six superb articles on "alternative medicine" in the Sept/Oct 1997
issue of CSICOP's Skeptical Inquirer magazine, which costs $7.50. An
introductory (six-issue) subscription at the special Internet price of
$16.95 can be obtained by calling (800) 634-1610.

This article was posted on July 24, 2003.

Ways to Spot an Internet Bandit
http://quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/BookContents/spotban.html

Fifteen Ways to Spot an Internet Bandit
by Daniel J. Barrett

>>From Bandits on the Information Superhighway

Copyright 1996, O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.

Hidden name or address. Don't conduct business with users unless they
reveal their name, address, and phone number. Beware of users who try
to buy or sell things using an anonymous email address *like
anon12345@anon.penet.fi) or a post office box.
Uncheckable references. "As seen on Donahue!" "The subject of hundreds
of newspaper articles!" These credentials sound impressive, but notice
that you aren't given enough information (dates, newspaper names) to
look them up.
Too much talk about money, not enough about the deal. Scammers try to
blind you with dreams of becoming rich, so you won't notice the fine
print. Watch out for bogus "profit charts" promising easy wealth.
"This is not a scam." Scammers say this all the time. They might even
cite specific laws that "prove" their legality. Don't fall for this
trick. A legitimate business doesn't spend time "convincing" you of its
honesty.
Requests for your credit card number. Don't send your credit card
number to anybody by email. If your mail software supports encryption,
this can help protect the number, but it may not be foolproof. Some
encryption techniques are better than others.
Pyramid shape. Are you asked to send money to (say) five people, who
each send money to five more people, who each send money to five more
people, and so on? Then you are very likely looking at an illegal
pyramid scheme.
Spamming. People who post huge numbers of identical articles online are
forcing you to pay the bill.
Too much knowledge about you. Take notice if a newfound "Net friend"
suddenly knows details about you that you have not revealed.
LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS and punctuation!!! Be skeptical of ads that
shout at you, like "MIRACLE CURE!!!" or "Learn how to make BIG $$$$$
MONEY in NO TIME AT ALL!!!!!
Pay before you play. The details of the offer are kept hidden until
after you pay a fee. But what happens if the details turn out to be
junk? You lose. Remember that "money-back-guarantees" from strangers
may be worthless.
Hidden costs. Watch out for ads that shout "it won't cost you a penny
to get started" and then quietly charge you an "entrance fee."
"Secret" method available "only to a limited number of people." A
typical scam ad reaches thousands or millions of users. That's a
strange way to reveal a secret! Scammers accept a "limited number" of
responses so they can close their business quickly and run away with
people's money.
Requests for your password. Never reveal your password to anybody. Your
system administrator never needs to ask you for it. If somebody asks
you to change your password to a known word for"system testing," be
immediately suspicious; this is a well-known cracker trick.
Unsolicited email. If you get email from a stranger out of the blue,
offering to give or sell you something, treat it with suspicion.
Inappropriate questions. If a "Net friend" you hardly know starts
asking very personal questions or tries to borrow money from you, be on
your guard.