Anyway, just because they're in a tiny minority doesn't mean they're
wrong. And honestly, I wish these folks would give me more to sweat over -- I
love a good argument. But, disappointingly, Colquhoun sticks to the same tired,
limp story to try to discredit the article, as do most of the others who have
complained.
The story is this: I am
an apologist for pseudoscience. Alternative-medicine treatments don't work, and
these sleazy huckster homeopaths and acupuncturists and chiropractors pretend
that they do in order to snare helpless patients who could have their ailments
effectively treated by mainstream medicine. What could be more nefarious than
preying on sick people with fake cures? And here I am, with the weight of The
Atlantic behind me, defending this despicable practice, and helping these
villains fool even more people with my tricky journalistic techniques. Oh, the
shame of it.
I'd hate myself, if it weren't for the fact that I don't do any of this
in the article. Rather, I point out high up in the piece, and with no bones
about it, that science has pretty clearly shown that the core treatments of
alternative medicine don't provide the direct physical effects that they are
claimed to provide by practitioners. They work via the placebo effect. Now
could someone please explain to me how it is that I could be defending
pseudoscience in an article in which I so clearly say it's
pseudoscience, and that it doesn't provide the claimed benefits? I do suggest
there's a placebo benefit -- but so do my critics. We're in perfect agreement.
Given that I'm completely on his side with regard to the central issue
that he and his fellow alt-med detestors spend all their time arguing with
others about, what is Colquhoun so unhappy about? Well, I do document in the
article some of the failings of mainstream medicine. But this doesn't seem to
much bother him. I claim that mainstream medicine also relies on the placebo
effect, but he doesn't quibble with that. I note that having practitioners
spend time and energy getting patients to adopt healthier behaviors and
attitudes can have an enormous impact on health and quality of life, lowering
the risk of serious disease, and I observe that mainstream practitioners are on
average less likely to do so than alternative practitioners. But he doesn't
seem to take issue with that, either. And, well, that's just about it for the
claims in my article. If you buy all that, you buy everything I've got to say.
OK, so what's really eating him? Why does he go through all this
trouble to make it sound like I'm defending pseudoscience and backing the
claims for these treatments when I so clearly do not, and when my entire
argument is based on rather uncontroversial points that are ripped from the
pages of mainstream medicine, and that are explicitly backed by a pretty
impressive cast of mainstream characters?