Conventional Medicine, Crazy Talk, and Oprah
The cover article in this week’s Newsweek intrigued me. It portrays a picture of Oprah being, well, Oprah with the title “Crazy Talk: Oprah, Wacky Cures, and You” (read the article here). Now, I admit, I’ve never seen an entire episode of Oprah, but it’s hard not to hear about her ideas since she’s everywhere. She touts new and exotic lifestyle habits that can help people live their best life. You know lose weight, look younger, be happy, be healthy. The article though goes out of its way to condescendingly tell readers how stupid it all is. They mock the preventative health regimes Oprah endorses, deride the discussions that vaccines are linked to autism, and scoff at the power of positive thinking. Why? Because all those things are outside the realm of conventional medicine – so therefore are suspect and can be labeled as “crazy talk.”
Like I said, I don’t watch Oprah and have no desire to defend her. Nor do I care necessarily for the particulars of these issues per se. What bugs me are the attitudes and assumptions expressed in the article. In my mind what is even scarier than say encouraging people to use positive thinking is convincing them that conventional medicine is the god they must worship or else be accused of the direst forms of heresy (i.e. crazy talk). There is this strange message conveyed that modern science is an objective take on the world and that if we simply trust in it’s science we can all be saved. And while I love modern medicine and owe my life to it a couple times over, can I kindly say that that is a bunch of bs.
First, modern medicine is not objective nor does it hold all the answers. The average doctor only has a very limited knowledge base when it comes to even what is known about health. Their skill and training vary and they are not the ones out there doing research and discovering new cures. I’ve personally had enough doctors either misdiagnose me or decide that since they don’t understand my symptoms they will do nothing to still hold any illusion that doctors truly know best about these things. While they know a lot, they are relying on their limited education and whatever drug programs have been pimped to them. They are obligated to sell the cures from the companies that have wined and dined them, not necessarily seek out what cure might work best for each patient. Similarly those cures were created by researchers funded by certain companies – with certain demands and expectations. This is not objective science seeking to heal the world, but businesses playing a marketing game with our health. They have bottom lines to protect – and when that bottom line is about money not health, that claim of objective science shatters. This god we are encouraged to blindly trust has ulterior motives.
Secondly, this unfounded trust in conventional medicine assumes that who we are can be reduced to biomedical issues. If we get sick then we are given some (patented) chemical to fight that sickness. The more we get sick, the more chemicals they sell. Who we are as whole people gets ignored. Pursuing lifestyles that help us be healthy, whole people messes with that system. We are trained to simply want to pop a pill to biomedically remove a problem, and that alternative remedies, preventative measures, or even concerns about those pills are scoffed at. If it doesn’t support the conventional system, it is alternative, and therefore wacky “crazy talk.” But the stories are more than obvious that people who take care of themselves – care for their body and “soul” – are happier and generally healthier. There is something to the power of positive thinking – be that if the form of prayer, or meditation, or whatever. There is something to watching what we eat, exercising regularly, detoxing ourselves, and feeling good about who we are that helps us truly live our best life. We are not just organisms waiting to get sick so that the sickness can be banished by the pill the priest dispenses at her holy alter. Life is a lot messier, organic, and holistic than that.
And I think that’s what Oprah is on to. Sure, I say question her suggestions, look into how they really affect people. But I have a hard time accepting a critique that dismisses her holistic lifestyle tips simply because they do not walk lockstep with conventional medicine. I use conventional medicine, and I actually know very little about so-called “alternative medicine,” but I question the supremacy of conventional medicine and it’s cult-like following in our society. It is a fantastic tool that I am grateful for, but I don’t buy the propaganda that it holds all the answers. So I appreciate the voices that propose alternatives and remind us that we are more than cells to be experimented upon. We don’t have all the answers, and I doubt we ever will, but the picture is a lot bigger than we have been led to believe.
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
Science is not as objective as it claims to be. Medical science, which should have the pure motivation and objective of helping keep people well and restoring them to health has been infected by the biases of insurance profits, hospital profits and big pharma. The problem is that the alternatives can’t even make a claim to a tainted objectivity. Their motive and objective is to convince you that their technique/tool/procedure/chemical/lifestyle will help you. They’re all selling something, one way or another. A book on positive thinking or a healthy lifestyle. A rare herb or root.
I work for a software company that produces software to facilitate cardiology procedures. We have to have doctors on staff to ensure our systems are clinically correct. One of our doctors is from India and, so none too sensitively, he often gets asked by (white) American coworkers about his opinions of “alternative” medicine, or homeopathic medicine or Chinese medicine. His answer is always the same, “show me the data, if the data says it works, then it works, and we should use it”.
I get the impression that he is actually very optimistic that many of these things which fall outside of “traditional, Western” medicine have great promise. But for him, the core of ethical medicine is to only use techniques, tools, procedures and chemicals which have demonstrated results. I also get the impression from other conversations that he is very optimistic about the viability of a national health care system, and that his primary concern about that is the potential cost run-ups that bad medicine would cause. Bad medicine being anything wasteful, ineffective, counter-effective, &c.
Many (most?) chemicals which are touted to have health benefits end up categorized as “dietary supplements” (vitamins, fish oil, garlic tablets, ginko, you name it). These things are not regulated by the FDA in the same way that Tylenol, Clariton and Chemotherapy are. Not that these things are necessarily regulated -well- or -sufficiently- but -some- regulation is better than none at all. There is simply no (trusted, independent, substantial) data to support many of the claims of many forms of alternative treatment.
The problem is that all those people who are trying to sell you the book, the herb, the technique, they have all worked very hard to keep these things out from under the control of the FDA. They know three things:
1) This is part of their marketing angle. If it is FDA regulated, it ceases to be “alternative” medicine that they can market to people who are skeptical that big pharma has completely corrupted Western medicine
2) If no regulatory studies are ever done, no one can ever demonstrate that their [product] doesn’t work
3) Not having to pay for regulatory studies will save them millions of dollars that they can then put towards undercutting the prices of traditional solutions.
I 100% agree, that it is shoddy journalism and uncharitable mean spiritedness to completely dismiss anything that isn’t Western medicine as crazy.
But I also see a lot of people who have developed a genuine bias -against- Western medicine on the assumption that at this point it is beyond redemption and is utterly enslaved to money who refuse to acknowledge the fact that all of the alternative solutions are -also- selling something. I see people who have latched onto one or two studies about vaccines and autism who have ignored every subsequent study and remain convinced that vaccines cause autism even though at this point the data is inconclusive at best and may even demonstrate a complete lack of causality. I see people who have replaced white cane sugar with agave nectar and bleach with white vinegar and refusing to drink out of plastic because “chemicals are bad”, failing to realize that everything in the universe is a chemical.
There is a lot of mythology being built in this country around alternative medicine, ecology and yet another 60’s-hippie-like return to “nature” and a vague spiritualness which stands in open opposition to science (much like the fundamentalists do, just with radically different reasons for doing it). I think this needs to be critiqued. It is a shame the people attempting to do that have such radical biases of their own which they cannot hide in their writing.
Of course there are scientists and doctors out there with particular agendas to drive that are not necessarily noble, just as there as pastors with such agendas as well. But you can’t divorce the issues here from the argument. As an example, parents who say “medicine has been taken over by people who have had medicines “pimped” to them know little more than I; therefore I won’t vaccinate my child” are stuck in the Dark Ages. See Pediatrics 2009; 123: 1446-1451, where children who are not vaccinated against whooping cough are over 20x more likely to get this very bad disease. With all due respect, parents who don’t vaccinate their children are clueless and if their child were to die from whooping cough they ought to be prosecuted for child abuse. But I digress.
I’ve met precious few doctors who believe in the straw man you set up in your diatribe against that bastion of medical information otherwise known as Newsweek. They do not think they know it all; in fact they are acutely aware that they do not. I’m sensing that the issue here you’re addressing is aimed more at the medical care delivery system in the US (which needs fixing), rather than the people who staff it. Big Pharma has a lot of moral issues to disentangle; it’s not as simple as “good” vs. “evil”. There’s a lot to be said about having an open and honest dialogue about the issues surrounding medical care in this country; but telling people to distrust their doctor because they are “pimping” drugs is not helpful.
What Jim said. Better said than I.
Jim – you are right most of the alternative stuff out there is just as biased and trying to turn a profit as well. That’s obvious. And yes, just to say that it should be regulated doesn’t help since that system too is run by those with enough money to influence decision makers. My point wasn’t to jump ship to the supplement side and believe all that stuff without cause, but simply to acknowledge that life is far more holistic than modern medicine often points out. A lot of this stuff works on a case by case basis (synthetic drugs as well as herbal supplements). One person might react adversely to a drug or vaccine while others don’t. Some people will respond just as well to a cayenne/ginko regime as they would to a patented drug for circulatory health. An emphasis that life is messy and that there may be multiple ways to treat an illness (or prevent it to begin with) just seems far more truthful in my book. I’m discouraged when doctors have told us when asked that there are no lifestyle changes we can make to treat what are basically lifestyle diseases – we simply have to take expensive medicine with side effects for the rest of our lives. That is only addressing part of the puzzle and I think could prove detrimental for the whole business down the road.
Mike – I think you misunderstand my intentions. I was not trying to attack doctors or say they think they know everything. I think patients treat them like they do and that often they don’t have the time or resources to expand their knowledge and treat outside the box. And yes, any parent who refuses to treat their children because they see medicine as a business is hurting their child. But there are a lot of parents who have done their research, understand their children’s health, who do have serious questions about vaccines and other medical stuff. The modern hospital birth is a prime example of taking something natural and turning it into a disease to be treated by overdrugging and clinincalizing everything. Asking questions about why this occurs and what can be done to change it is not a rejection of science, it is a call for sanity and holism. Like I said – I like modern medicine. My kids are vaccinated, I had the super-clinical hospital births, and I literally owe my life to modern medicine (albeit, it wouldn’t have been endangered except for complications due to modern medicine as well…). I am not telling people to distrust their doctor, merely suggesting that they don’t assume the doctor will have all the answers and that they should live in a way that cares for themselves as a whole person, not just as a machine that occassionally needs repair.
That’s upsetting. And certainly not true. Sure, they may be a handful of corrupt doctors, but just about every medical school alerts students to not get swayed by this stuff — and several doctors pledge to never take anything from pharmaceutical companies.
They may not know everything, but a good doctor knows who to contact if their own knowledge is limited. They’re the best hope someone has for getting better. Only hope? I wouldn’t go that far. But I’d much rather put my faith in an educated doctor than the alternative medicine and “holistic” cures that Oprah promotes. Those things have not been tested, and any good they’ve done is purely anecdotal.
More likely than not, they function as a placebo. (And, as an atheist, I say that about prayer, too.) If you want to get better, your body is more receptive to getting better. That’s not a surprise. The problem with this approach is that some people refuse modern medicine because they want to leave their care up to the alternative medicine — with awful results. Even worse is when they submit their children to their beliefs.
Just Google Madeline Neumann and Daniel Hauser if you want examples of that.
That whole “placebo effect” is part of Julie’s point. Our minds and bodies are not separate things. We are wholistic creatures and thus our “minds” do play a role in healing our “bodies”. If that is the case, then why should the “power of positive thinking” (or prayer or placebos) be so derided? Why should bio-chemical solutions be the only ones that are considered “scientific”? If we’ve so reduced the definitions of “science” or “medicine” to exclude any treatments except those that can be sold to us by drug companies, then perhaps we need to reclaim those words and expand their meanings to include an understanding of the whole person, not just our biochemistry.
Hemant – maybe I just go to the cheap doctors, but everything in every doctor’s office I’ve have ever been to is a promotion for a certain drug. The drug companies give them stuff – from posters, to pens, to freaking stirrup covers at the obgyn – and they recommend that particular drug. The reps bring them lunches, catered from nice restuarants, and they promise to make them sells. never exclusively of course, but its still there. it isn’t corruption, its business. Similarily, I wish the doctors I’ve been to were good enough to ask when they were stumped. most I’ve been to were too overstressed and overbooked to bother. Their go-to answer is – “go get a catscan” at the cost of a couple of thousand after insurance to me. It’s just the way it is.
And yes, as Mike pointed out, there is merit to the placebo effect, our mind and bodies are connected. But I think too often the effects of natural herbs and the like are written off too readily. Food chemicals do affect our bodies. Anyone with a food allergy could tell you that. I’ve even been on synthetic drugs for which I was told to strictly avoid things like grapefruit or foods with vitamin K. These things do affect us. Sure acai might not create a flat belly, but it is full of healthy antioxidents that help our bodies. just because something is natural doesn’t mean it does nothing or is wacky.
I really feel like this post really sets up a false dichotomy. You seem to assume that either modern medicine, as represented by every single doctor, has to work flawlessly and objectively, and have all the answers, or else every bit of quackery needs to be treated as reasonable. Modern medicine certainly does not have all the answers, and has all kinds of flaws. But that doesn’t mean that we should treat as unreasonable claims that lack empirical evidence.
Modern science hasn’t concluded that people are best kept healthy by taking pills. Any halfway decent doctor will tell you that good diet, regular exercise, and good lifestyle are are important in staying healthy, and that your mental health can affect your physical health. But many doctors may be more interested in getting you in and out of their office by prescribing pills. And I’ve certainly had doctors who didn’t like discussing side effects of addictive properties of drugs (I suspect less because of the influence of drug companies than because most doctors I’ve had have hated having their expertise questioned in any way). Modern medicine is run by people, and people have all kinds of flaws.
That doesn’t change the fact that, at it’s core, modern medicine is based on empirical testing of claims, and Oprah’s claims are not. It strikes me as quite reasonable to scoff at claims that don’t have empirical evidence. If Oprah’s going to claim that vaccines cause autism, she should have good scientific evidence for this, or she should be derided. And from your description of the Newsweek article, I would get the impression that Somers was promoting exercise, and good mental health, which would indeed be strange to mock, since there are plenty of scientific studies that show these things promote good physical health. But when I look at the actual article, I see that Somers is promoting rubbing an estrogen cream on her skin, injecting herself with unregulated hormones, and taking a regimen of 60 assorted pills a day. If she doesn’t have empirical evidence that these things are good for you, she should criticized, as not just as a quack, but as a potentially dangerous quack. Encouraging people to inject themselves with chemicals, without any scientific studies about what the effects are, is indeed “crazy talk.”
Very nice article. Thanks for the great tips!
AH – you seem to be reading that dichotomy onto what I am writing. Although I numerous times state that I like and use modern medicine, that hasn’t seem to have gotten though. This is why this discussion is so difficult to have. people assume a dichotomy – that there are good guys and bad guys and we must choose which side to follow. But that’s not it at all. I think following one side exclusively is quack and harmful to one’s health.
There is ample evidence that our medical system is a treatment based system not a preventative system That what a lot of health care reform is all about. And I wouldn’t jump so fast to scoff at ideas without emperical evidence (or as often is the case here, simply small evidence or not FDA approved evidence). Question and explore further, yes. Scoff and close our minds, no.
JC – I feel like we’re talking about different things, for reasons that I don’t fully understand. I saw that you stated many times that you like and use modern medicine. I didn’t say that you were setting up a dichotomy that modern medicine was all good or all evil, so I’m not sure why you’re stressing that. The dichotomy that I’m seeing is that either modern medicine is all good, or that everything that contradicts modern medicine has to be accepted as reasonable. If you’re not setting up that dichotomy, I don’t understand what your post has to do with the Newsweek article. It’s not an article that says that modern medicine has all the answers, or that doctors are perfect, or that derides eating right and exercising, or that mocks taking preventive measures (where by preventive measures I mean things that we have actual empirical reasons to believe are preventive measures). It’s an article that criticizes the promotion of various practices like failing to vaccinate children, and injecting yourself with hormones, as not being based in reality.
“There is ample evidence that our medical system is a treatment based system not a preventative system.”
OK, I’ll buy that. But again, I feel like we’re having different conversations. I don’t see why that’s a criticism of either my post, or the Newsweek article. What part of the Newsweek article do you see as opposing preventive care? Like I said before, from your post, I was expecting a Newsweek article criticizing exercise, eating right, and other preventative activities. Then I followed the link and found an entirely different article than I had expected.
I’m sorry so many posters here seemed to have missed your point, Julie. it was a great post!
I suffer from severe eczema and I have a number of food allergies. After having dealt with allopathic medicine for a decade looking for some effective treatment (which I could find none) I finally turned to a naturopath who was able to help me treat my eczema/allergies, effectively.
Allopathic medicine is fine for surgery and emergencies but I have first hand experience that it is not very effective when it comes to chronic illnesses.