Ben Folds - Upper Right Banner

Jun. 24, 2009 - Issue #714: The Rural Alberta Advantage

Share |

Well, Well, Well

Really crazy talk

| Commenting on this story is closed.

A recent Newsweek piece titled "Crazy Talk" missed the mark of balanced and credible reporting to become a condescending attack on the credibility of Oprah Winfrey, some guests she hosted earlier this year, and alternative medicine in general. Derogatorily describing the show with Suzanne Somers as "a perfect hour of tabloid television," the writers produced something that might have been a public relations piece written by the pharmaceutical industry, which is probably not all that far from reality.

The truth is that Newsweek, like so many media outlets, has close ties with the pharmaceutical industry. In 2001, the magazine ran a special health edition that conferred sponsorship for the issue entirely on the pharmaceutical lobby. It has cosponsored conferences with the drug lobby. Its reporting has been used as direct-mail lobbying by the industry and an industry-funded front group called the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA. And Pat Wingert, one of the authors of the article, is anything but unbiased—he's written much on the benefits of starting hormone replacement early, and is coauthor of The Complete Guide to Menopause.

I don't watch Oprah, but to say her show is deserving of the adjective "seamy" for hosting advocates of alternative medicine and to refer to those people as "pop-science artists" appears to be little more than a last gasp attempt at defending a system of medicine that is failing us. Dr. Christiane Northrup, Dartmouth-educated ob-gyn, also criticized in the article, is hardly a quack for opposing Gardasil (even the FDA has strengthened its warning on the vaccine), nor for recognizing the mind-body connection doctors tend to overlook (it's a connection solidly supported by science.)

Making the assumption that the medical establishment recommends only what is safe and in our best interests, and that alternative approaches to health are foolhardy and pseudoscientific, the writers overlook the fact that much medical practice is in fact years behind what the science supports. As Dr. David Newman, the emergency room physician, clinical researcher and Columbia University teacher of medicine makes abundantly clear in his book Hippocrates' Shadow, much of what we assume to be both safe and effective in medical practice is sometimes neither.

The writers of "Crazy Talk" dismissively refer to bio-identical hormones in quotation marks, implying there's no such thing. They claim that what passes for bio-identical is no different and no safer than are synthetic hormones, a claim not even remotely true—their chemical structure and actions in the body are quite different. Bio-identical means chemically identical to the hormones produced in our bodies—and it means they're not patentable as drugs. The FDA knows of no adverse effects associated with bio-identical hormones properly used, something not true of their synthetic counterparts.

Synthetic counterparts to our hormones on the other hand present a challenge to our bodies. We have trouble metabolizing them. They stress our livers, increase our nutritional needs and their use is strongly correlated with high homocysteine levels and inflammation. They increase our risk of heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, dementia, diabetes, osteoporosis and cancer.

To refer to alternative approaches as "hogwash" having an "aura of being scientific" is, though condescending and absolutely untrue, a highly effective tactic for discrediting ideas that are a threat to the orthodoxy. The medical orthodoxy, aware of its own damaged credibility, wants the thousands of people finding help with alternative medicine to go away. The only way it will achieve that goal is to disparage them, to dismiss alternative medicine as dangerous and foolish mumbo-jumbo even when it is soundly grounded in good science.

As German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once said, "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." V 

New comments for this entry have been turned off and any existing ones are hidden. We apologize for any inconvenience.