 |
| No, for real: The original article "Take time" actually lists "bloodletting" as one of the Mayr therapies. I know there are actual indications for this, but being gullible and having too much money is not one of them. |
Proof
This is where the crux lies.
If you can prove that it works, then you can advertise as you wish and
make all the claims in the world (as long as they’re true) and no-one can do
anything about it.
But then you need valid proof. This is where it often where things like
“haematogenous oxidation therapy” (or HOT, as alternative therapy experts refer
to it) fall down. Scouring Pubmed (an
online database of most of published medical literature) one cannot find a
single reference to it (probably because the term itself is unscientific, see
below).
In fact, the only results one
get when searching for HOT, are a few websites advertising the services of
alternative therapy clinics, such as Biomaxx, a website which offers a
delightful and entertaining read is ever there was one (this, too will require
a separate analysis).
The fact of the
matter is that not a single reference to a peer-reviewed journal article is
made. We just have to believe that these
“therapies” and “drugs” work, just because a man called Dr. Michael Trogisch
says so. (Note that this is an old
trick. There is no proof anywhere that
this man has a valid MD or PhD. Read Bad Science for a detailed analysis of
such claims of learnedness. Even if he
did, it does not magically validate any claim he makes, just because he wears a
white coat and carries a stethoscope.)
Coincidentally (and once again Dr. Goldacre has pointed out
a similar error made by a nutritionist), the term is a rather confusing
one. Oxidation is the process by which a
molecule, atom or ion gives up electrons (ie by which rust forms). Oxygenation
is the process by which the oxygen content of tissue or blood is
increased. An easy error for the
uninitiated, but as I would point out in my mind-battle with medical doctors
and scientists dabbling in alternative therapy: “We are all initiates in the league of science!” (Admittedly a Batman
quote, but I do think that misleading
the public with regards to science is a bit more nefarious than threatening to
blow up Gotham City with a neutron bomb – at least that attempts to utilize actual, albeit theoretical, science. (7) )
 |
| Don't worry, by rusting the iron in your body, you will accumulate a cool endoskeleton, much like Hugh Jackman's Wolverine. Only without the claws, healing factor and the being alive part. But very much similar in its fictitiousness. |
With regards to Mayr Clinic, I would challenge anyone to
come forward with valid, peer-reviewed, scientifically scrutinized evidence for
the effectiveness of the “Mayr Cure®”, as I have been unable to find any.
Anecdotes
“But what about the testimonials?” you may hysterically ask,
as if this would be a sort of muting trump card destined to make me shut my
know-it-all mouth.
What indeed? A favourite quote of mine, by Roger Brinner,
is this: “The plural of anecdote is not
data.” Data is gathered by research,
where there is a clear hypothesis about the change in a measurable outcome
according to a well-described methodology.
Raving reviews about some fad-diets and therapies by people who have
invested time and money into it, does not count. Healthcare has the dubious honour of having
to live up to certain standards when claims are made about treatments.
We have all bought a book which had phrases like “incredibly
eloquent” or “the read of your life” (often attributed to the ambiguous Independent) printed boldly below some creative and enticing cover art and
title, only to find that it was not so much a book, but rather cliché plots and
characters randomly arranged into some semblance of what a rhesus monkey might
have produced if strapped to a stool in front of a typewriter for long
enough.
“Where did these reviews come
from?” we may bewilderedly ask ourselves as we wantonly toss the pages into a
bonfire made specifically for that purpose.
Where indeed? It has been
suggested (8)
that fake reviews of books are extremely
common, often created by authors and publishers, under many different titles
and names, in order to boost sales. But
we are smarter than that, so we look try not to be fooled by these shady
one-liners on the backs of pulp fiction
.
Why then, if so many people are hesitant to believe that a
mere book is worth reading on the grounds of a few unreliable anecdotes, should
we believe that someone putting a pipe up your bum for a colonic irrigation is
going to make you fantastic, merely on the authority of a few rave reviews from
some gullible “down-to-earth middle-aged women enjoying a week of TLC”?
Then again, if you enjoy that kind of thing
for TLC, I am not going to judge.
Just to reiterate: Don’t simply take as evidence, the words
of Drs. Stossier because they are (presumably medical) doctors, who have a few
dozen (presumably real) people writing positive reviews about their spa on its
own website, in tabloids across the UK and (now unfortunately) in the Mail
& Guardian’s Health section.
Don’t
believe that their diet works because there are five people who have given the
book five star reviews. This is not
evidence. This is anecdote and it is
delightfully easy to manipulate and manufacture.
No comments:
Post a Comment