Truth
and Fiction
One of the places where pseudoscience is rife is in alternative
medicine. (The choice of the word “rife” was fortuitous. One
of the great names in quackery was Royal Raymond Rife.) One of the
principles of alternative medicine seems to be a rejection of
science, although practitioners like to claim scientific
credibility for their treatments. Alternative supporters will
often talk about the research done in the alternative field
(research which always seems to be suppressed by the orthodoxy),
but whenever I look at what passes for research I am reminded of
Gulliver’s visit to the Grand Academy of Lagado, where
researchers were working on problems like softening marble so that
it could be used as a pillow, extracting sunbeams from cucumbers,
recovering the original food from excrement, and investigating the
malleability of fire.
I
recently gave a talk about pseudomedicine to the Australian
Skeptics, and one of the examples of dangerous quackery I featured
was a book called “The Cure for All Diseases” by Hulda Clark,
who bills herself as a “researcher” in alternative medicine.
She has written other books called “The Cure for All Cancers”,
“The Cure for All Advanced Cancers” and “The Cure for
HIV/AIDS”; she used to run a lucrative cancer clinic in Tijuana
until it was closed by the Mexican authorities (her PR people
claim that it is still open), and she does brisk sales of
electronic zapping devices and herbal preparations through several
web sites. “The Cure for All Diseases” is currently ranked at
position 3,198 in sales at Amazon.com. This is big business.
The procedure consists of diagnosis by a machine called a “syncrometer”,
which is nothing more than a simple galvanometer. The sound
emitted indicates what is wrong, and this is then fixed by a
combination of some herbs and “zapping” with a device that
provides a small electric current. The syncrometer is then used
again, and it indicates a cure by making a different noise. The
scientific content of all this is zero. One result of Clark's “research”
is the suggestion that by using her treatment methods it is
possible for Type 1 diabetics to virtually eliminate the need for
insulin. In these people the Islets of Langerhans in the pancreas,
which produce insulin, are destroyed. The only treatment available
for this condition has been frequent insulin injections, although
in rare cases a transplant of a pancreas and kidney have effected
a cure. (It’s only a partial cure, because the patient exchanges
hourly insulin injections for daily anti-rejection tablets.)
Clark's fantasy includes the preposterous statement that 50% of
the islets can regenerate. This is simply nonsense - once the
islets have been replaced by scar tissue, there is no possibility
of recovery.
The
day after my presentation was the 50th anniversary of the
publication of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis
Crick. This was a case of real scientists making a real discovery
which transformed what we knew about how the body worked and
opened the way for a revolution in the understanding of diseases
and their prevention and treatment. It would be hard to imagine a
better deserved Nobel Prize.
These two seemingly unrelated matters were brought together for
me a couple of days later, when I went for a tour through The
Millennium Institute at Westmead Hospital. In the foyer is a map
of the human genome, and the first laboratory we visited contained
machines for sequencing genes. These machines are used by
researchers throughout the institute in their work on cancer,
viruses and other research areas. The breadth of what has become
possible in just fifty years in real medicine highlights the
vacuousness of what passes for research in pseudomedicine, where
nothing new or useful has been found for centuries and where
science is just a dirty word.
The
next event really highlighted the difference between medicine and
the alternative. We were addressed by a scientist working on
techniques to transplant just the islets into diabetics, rather
than the complete pancreas. So far, only four successful
transplants have been performed, two at Westmead and two by their
collaborators in the USA. (The transplant team at Westmead have
done about 140 full-pancreas transplants.) The new method requires
much less dramatic surgery, has shorter recovery time, requires
less anti-rejection medication for the life of the patient, and
holds out the possibility of a single donor pancreas being able to
be used for multiple recipients. It's early days yet, but this has
the potential to transform the lives of many people whose only
choice up to now has been between many injections each day and
death. There could be no starker contrast between medicine and
quackery than comparing these scientists, with their cautious
optimism and rigorous research, with charlatans who unashamedly
lie about having all the answers right now.
This article by Peter Bowditch appeared in the April 2003
edition of Australasian
Science
