[Discussion] Medical Quackery

This is a follow up to the thread "Medical quackery in the US upsets me very, very much". The aim of this current thread is to take up the discussion on medical quackery (widening the scope since the US isn't the only country concerned), discuss news item pertaining to it and the potential responses to address it.
The definition of medical quackery is not up for debate and includes, among others, homeopathy, vaccine skepticism, naturopathy, crystal healing, psychic healing.

I like my doctors aloof and autocratic! If I don't feel that I am being talked down to and shamed for my life choices then you can bet I won't return to that provider.

Reaper81 wrote:

I like my doctors aloof and autocratic! If I don't feel that I am being talked down to and shamed for my life choices then you can bet I won't return to that provider.

I'm going to assumed that comment is directed at me, so thanks for the pile on and the unnecessary sarcasm.

I'm not saying that patients must to be talked down to, that was never what I wrote nor implied, as I have already stated multiple times. But there is such a thing as dangerous practices, both for patients and for people around them. When people choose not to vaccinate themselves, they are putting themselves, immunocompromised people and small babies at risk. When cancer patients take herbal supplements that interact with chemo, it's dangerous. When you inject tumeric in your veins, you will die. These beliefs are dangerous, and it's our duty as doctors to share knowledge and help educate folks.

This is all the more baffling to me, as I know you folks would waste absolute no time in telling flat earthers they were wrong.

At this point, I can tell that my input is not wanted here, so I guess I'll just have to bow out.

I’m curious. Are relatively wealthy white women also the group more likely to forego evidence-based cancer treatment in favor of alternative medicine or is this particular phenomenon just related to vaccines?

Eleima wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

I like my doctors aloof and autocratic! If I don't feel that I am being talked down to and shamed for my life choices then you can bet I won't return to that provider.

I'm going to assumed that comment is directed at me, so thanks for the pile on and the unnecessary sarcasm.

I'm not saying that patients must to be talked down to, that was never what I wrote nor implied, as I have already stated multiple times. But there is such a thing as dangerous practices, both for patients and for people around them. When people choose not to vaccinate themselves, they are putting themselves, immunocompromised people and small babies at risk. When cancer patients take herbal supplements that interact with chemo, it's dangerous. When you inject tumeric in your veins, you will die. These beliefs are dangerous, and it's our duty as doctors to share knowledge and help educate folks.

This is all the more baffling to me, as I know you folks would waste absolute no time in telling flat earthers they were wrong.

At this point, I can tell that my input is not wanted here, so I guess I'll just have to bow out.

Assume away. To clarify, it was not.

Rather, I found it humorous that a bunch of MDs were talking about the best way to communicate medical knowledge and provide treatment to skeptical populations using language that can reinforce that same skepticism.

Using the term patient is inherently separative and creates distance between practitioner / provider and client. There's a bunch of reasons why one word or another (client v. patient for instance) may be used but sufficed to say some people absolutely do react to terminology.

We can use science and scientific inquiry to inform practice but if we have no credibility with the populations we serve then our science and knowledge is useless.

Huh? I'd bet 99% of the medical field call the people they help patients when not directly speaking with them.

Eleima wrote:

You guys are putting words into my mouth and it's unbecoming of you. Glad you think I'm advocating for a rigid and dogmatic position.
And let's not put the responsibility of antivaxxers on migrant cultures, it's just a tad little racist.
Research shows that that kind of patient is overwhelmingly female, well off and white (article in Vaccine, or here). And since we're all talking about personal experience, the people first in line to catch up on immunizations are immigrants.

What?! Where did I mention migrant cultures being antivaxxers? Vaccinations aren't even part of my practice! Please don't make this personal, I thought this had been a thoughtful, civil conversation until you called me a racist which I don't appreciate.

Now, back to quackery in cancer. There was an abstract presented at ASCO this weekend regarding views on alternative medicine in cancer patients/clients in France. Actually seems pretty tame to me, obviously much more homeopathy than occurs here but overall doesn't seem too disturbing. Older patient population which may have skewed results:

https://meetinglibrary.asco.org/reco...

Now compare that to this national cancer survey in the U.S. from last year where nearly 40% of those surveyed believed alternative medicine alone could cure cancer:

https://www.asco.org/about-asco/pres...

Now that is terrifying......

Principle of charity:
In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.

We might need a little of this.

Please remember that we are all on the same side. It’s extremely easy to misinterpret forum posts.

Medical Devices: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

farley3k wrote:

Medical Devices: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

I watched a documentary on Netflix that is a more in depth look at the medical device issues. If the John Oliver bit peeked your interest, check it out. A warning though, the content can be hard to watch at times.

The Bleeding Edge