

The Quackish Cult of Alternative Medicine - tokenadult
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114899/paul-offits-do-you-believe-magic-reviewed-dangers

======
GeorgeOrr
The author seems a bit dismissive of what I would call a healthy scepticism
towards the current medical establishment. He refers to such sceptics as
conspiracy theorists, which is a great way to ignore people without any
thought.

Is it that odd to think that there are well funded big pharma interests in
making sure that only that which is patented is approved?

Sadly, most of the proof that treatments work are provided by the drug company
that has a profit motive to produce that proof. There is no interest in
providing that research for something that isn't controlled for someone's
profit.

To be clear, there's nothing wrong at all with profiting from research done.
It's also very important to understand the risks taken when using something
that isn't well studied. Natural doesn't mean safe, of course that's true.

But it also isn't a conspiracy theory to say that people who have billions of
dollars in profit at stake may occasionally give money to the right Senator,
or fund only that which is in their interest.

~~~
tokenadult
It would be naive to think that people can only make money from validated
medicine. In fact, many people find it easier to pursue a profit motive with
"alternative" medicine, because it has much less research and development
overhead than medical practice that actually has to prove its safety and
effectiveness.

~~~
ambler0
What you're saying is certainly true, but I don't think you're addressing the
criticism directly. The question is not, "Is there money to be made by
bypassing the scientific method?" The question is, "Are there systemic biases
that result from money's setting the research agenda?"

It seems to me a virtual tautology that companies will only fund areas of
research where they think they can make money, and so areas without apparent
profit potential will be understudied. This is a reason why publicly funded,
pure science is so important to me.

I just want to make it clear that not everyone who is critical of _the way
science is practiced by human beings and institutions_ is "anti-science". One
can still be a True Believer in the scientific method and its philosophical
underpinnings, and yet still still believe that science as practiced has
institutional blindspots.

