PDA

View Full Version : NCCAM


Diane
29-03-2008, 03:23 PM
Ever since it came to my attention that this organization even existed, I've made it a bit of a hobby to check it out. Here is an interesting article written way back in 2002, called Why the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) Should Be Defunded (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/nccam.html) by Wallace I. Sampson, M.D., which I found this morning by folowing links from Science Based Medicine.

How I learned about this funding agency was when Carol Davis mentioned it in her own defense when she was questioned about teaching CAM in U. of Miami to PT students. (See Jason Silvernail's thread series on EIM (http://blog.myphysicaltherapyspace.com/2008/03/myofascial-re-2.html), Part I of Myofascial Madness, Quackery at the University of Miami (http://blog.myphysicaltherapyspace.com/2008/02/myofascial-rele.html). It received over 80 responses.) Davis' reply was logged on Feb 20th 08, where she said, "..to ignore or dismiss the contribution of quantum physics to this discussion is to turn a blind eye to exciting and quite plausable hypotheses that accompany the facts of what we observe is happening at a celluar level. I say "observe" based on the work of outstanding scientists, at Harvard, Duke, Princeton and, yes, the NIH, NCCAM - National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine."

So, I decided to learn what I could about NCCAM along the way, just by keeping my eyes open. What I found today, the Wallace Sampson article dated 2002, tells me that lots of people have their eyes wide open about this, and that NCCAM does not have scientific credibility. Why did I not spot this before? Because I'm not a US PT, therefore it was off my radar. Here is a blogpost, more recent; The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM): Your tax dollars hard at work (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=36) by David Gorski at Science Based Medicine (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/).

Also, the paper brought here in the thread featuring a Langevin paper investigating fibroblasts (http://www.somasimple.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5335) that was funded by NCCAM also tells me that whatever it funds turns out to be a bit dubious, as there is a disclaimer under the page which indicates that the paper is classified as advertising. See post 5 (http://www.somasimple.com/forums/showpost.php?p=50450&postcount=5). This is the sort of stuff that has crept into PT, people. It deserves to be highlighted and denounced every time it's spotted. If each of us does not do this - learn to tell the difference between real theory and pseudo-theory, between real science base for our own treatment constructs and pseudo-science theory for treatment constructs, we will fail our profession. If we fall prey to the dopamemes, we lose our shot at turning PT into the first human primate social grooming profession ever, in existence, not based on quacky ideas.

This thread can be the place where anyone who finds any stuff out there on NCCAM can bring it to be deconstructed, decontaminated of dopa-memes and the danger they pose to our existence as a profession.

Barrett Dorko
29-03-2008, 03:36 PM
Diane,

I've been watching this for quite a while in the US and I'm a long-time fan of Dr. Sampson. I've found that while no one can reasonably disagree with his careful and fully-supported assertions about what's happening he has yet to influence the culture that has created and perpetuated the institutions against which he rails.

There's a lesson here, and the moderators at Soma Simple learn more about it every day.

Nick
29-03-2008, 03:40 PM
My favorite quote from Sampson's article linked above:

"We also know that ill-conceived research produces misleading results. The results then lead to repetitive cycles of unproductive work to explain what was found, usually just to disprove the erroneous results. As a result of all this, claims continue."[empasis mine]


Does this sound familiar to anyone else?

Diane
29-03-2008, 03:58 PM
Nick, yeah, I recognize a big waste of money and endless recycling of ideas in an ill fated attempt to re-engineer reality, instead of just relaxing and learning what reality is, first, then accepting it, second. We don't have that kind of $ to throw around in Canada - we have enough trouble just getting real science funded.

Barrett, I've been watching this for quiet a while in the US and I'm a long-time fan of Dr. Sampson. I've found that while no one can reasonably disagree with his careful and fully-supported assertions about what's happening he has yet to influence the culture that has created and perpetuated the institutions against which he rails.
This has to be because it's U.S. culture itself he's trying to "change". This is the culture that turned the phrase "you create your own reality" into a cultural icon against nature.

Diane
29-03-2008, 04:18 PM
Here is Michael Shermer's article in SciAm, Wronger than Wrong (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=wronger-than-wrong&print=true). In it he quotes Dawkins as saying, "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong." I also want to quote my own current tag line here, "..a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
- Thomas Paine

Diane
25-06-2008, 10:35 PM
This just in from Science-Based Medicine blog: Politics and Science at the HHS (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=149#more-149).
It kind of goes with the other thread (http://www.somasimple.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5701) I started today, here in the decontamination room.
The first paragraph:
When politics and science collide, shenanigans are likely to ensue. Politics is often antithetical to science because the former is about persuasion and value judgments while the latter is about objectivity and transparency. Science cannot function properly under the yoke of political ideology.
I agree completely when it comes to pseudoscience sliding its icky tentacles into public acceptance by using politics as its lubricant (as chiropractic did), but I fret when/if this idea is used as a weapon when it comes to managing health care costs and benefits within a rational, national health care system. Yes, science should lead. A responsive political framework would follow/support/provide, not compete.

BB
09-08-2008, 08:02 AM
Here is yet another gem (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=150#more-150)from the science based medicine blog on the incorporation of "Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM)" into medical schools. PT's most notable case currently in this scenario is the University of Miami and Carol Davis who teaches energy medicine to the PT students there.

As an example of the infiltration into our own professional media see this (http://www.somasimple.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5252&highlight=carol+davis).

Mary C
09-08-2008, 12:55 PM
Is story telling replacing science?

anoopbal
09-08-2008, 04:57 PM
I read abut how BBC had a alternative medicine section on their website but they removed it recently.

BB
09-08-2008, 08:53 PM
Good for the BBC!

Mary,

Our brains are wired for stories (http://www.somasimple.com/forums/showthread.php?p=56697#post56697). Scientific method is our way of compensating for that but we are irrestibly drawn to story. A problem is that in the media different stories are given equal credibility regardless of the credibility of the source and certain sources aren't too concerned with accuracy.

This was exemplified in the movie "Man of the Year" while riding in the limo, the campaign director for the candidate says (paraphrasing here): "The media puts a crackpot up to debate an actual expert and gives them equal airtime and puts their windows on the same level as if what they are saying has equal credibility."

Diane
09-08-2008, 09:23 PM
Here is a great "story" about this phenomenon Cory has referred to, a podcast interview (http://docartemis.com/brainsciencepodcast/2008/08/08/43-burton/) with Robert Burton, author of the book, On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not. Burton is a neurologist and a novelist, so he knows something about stories and weaving them together. He has come to consider that feeling "certainty" is one way the brain feels itself, but that it is a perceptual illusion, right up there with magic tricks and other optical illusions. In manual therapy, the equivalent would be "perceptual fantasy" and most treatment constructs "conceptual hallucinations."

BB
10-08-2008, 12:51 AM
Thanks Diane. Here is another example (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=308). Just because you are a celebrity and people will listen to what you say, doesn't mean that they should.

BB
10-08-2008, 01:01 AM
Probably more troubling is the infiltration of CAM into academic institutions. Some such as Yale call them integrative medicine. Take a look at this discussion (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=167)on the topic.

Diane
10-08-2008, 01:10 AM
Further to the book I mentioned (and have on order, now that I've listened to the podcast interview), here is Harriet Hall's review (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=103) of it.
It inspired me to write a few blogposts about it.
1. Is certainty a dopameme? (http://humanantigravitysuit.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-certainty-dopameme.html)
2. BrainScience Podcast #42: "On Being Certain" (http://humanantigravitysuit.blogspot.com/2008/07/brain-science-podcast-42-on-being.html).