by Parmjit Singh
Objectivity vs subjectivity, data-driven vs anecdotal, scientific vs non-scientific, modern vs traditional, evidence-based vs. not-evidence based—that is the conventional description of modern medicine and traditional health-care systems respectively.
One is dubbed as scientific, totally evidence-based and the other, mere refined charlatanism or a remnant of primitive Medicare system before the advent of the so-called ‘miracle drugs’ or ‘surgical’ procedures.
But is it really true?
Is all modern medicine evidence-based and the evidence all incontrovertible? Are the complementary systems nothing more than refined quackery? What is the real truth behind the ‘evidence-based’ medicine and the ‘softness’ of complementary treatment? Are they rightly clubbed into categories with the former calling the shots and the latter languishing in the dog house for the want of so-called ‘evidence’?
These and other important questions are picked by Toby Murcott in this thought provoking book. One thing, in addition to lot others, which makes this book worth reading by modern medical specialists, alternative practitioners and the general consumer, is that, it confronts us with the ‘evidence or lack thereof’ from both the sides. He takes to task the often-claimed infallibility of randomized controlled designs, a gold standard in research methodology by bringing out the evidence that it is not as infallible as it has been portrayed. It may be the best available tool for research, but is definitely not flawless. “It is not, however, all powerful. There are limits to what such trials can discover and what it can be used to investigate” (pg 78).
Every hypothesis is based on current understanding and “discoveries are made at the limits of scientists’ abilities” (pg 17). Because our current understanding of the biological phenomenon is based on the mechanistic principles, the scientists tend to trash anything which does not fit into the current framework. This works to the advantage of modern medicine—every thing is based on mechanistic thinking: the hypothesis, randomized controlled-designs and data interpretation. Given that, the alternative medicine practitioners are always driven to the fringes because of the lack of so-called evidence. For alternative medical practitioners, the eventual success of the treatment process depends not only on the administration of a drug but also on the quality of the doctor-patient relationship. In this equation, subjectivity plays a pivotal role while in conventional science this element is considered a sort of anomaly, a persona non grata. “Double blind randomized controlled trials are poor at assessing long-term interventions. They are poor at evaluating treatments that rely on the therapist-patient relationships” (pg 83).
If alternative therapies are all junk science, as some people tend to believe, Toby Murcott asks, why are people using them? Why has their popularity gone up substantially despite all the negative attention from the proponents of conventional medicine?
Is there something we are missing?
Toby Murcott challenges the scientists in the domain where they are “supposed” to be good at—impartial thinking. By presenting facts from both the sides of the table he floats a convincing argument that scientists should shed their prejudicial thinking and devise strategies to understand and research alternative therapies because “rejecting complementary therapies purely on the grounds that they have not been fully tested is inconsistent” (pg 161). By doing so, he argues, they may find the missing link to good healing which they are looking for only in randomized controlled experiments of the modern medicine—the-not-so-gold-standard-anymore.
Regardless of your affiliations and training, you must read this book.
THE WHOLE STORY
Alternative Medicine on trial?
TOBY MURCOTT
MacMillan Publishing, 2005
Hardbound, $36.95, Pg. 173
Category: Science/Alternative Medicine
About the Author: Toby Murcott did his PhD and postdoctoral research in biochemistry at Bristol University, UK. He is a leading science writer, journalist and broadcasters. He currently has a regular column about alternative medicine in the The Times newspaper. He was for many years the science correspondent for BBC World Service Radio before becoming the Editorial Director of Einstein TV, a digital science channel.
