Simon Carr: Why knock something that gives us comfort?
Friday, 30 May 2008
In defence of the ridiculous. Now mediums – even the "genuine mediums" provided for in the previous Act of Parliament – have to put up a sign saying they're only entertainers. "This séance is for entertainment purposes only" they are expected to say. The same goes for palm readers, psychics, healers, chakra-massagers, and possibly for all sorts of complementary medicinal activities.
Some years ago I went to interview a newspaper astrologer. He must be a multi-millionaire now, with his premium-rate phone lines. We chatted for a little, I brought up Popper's test of falsifiability and expressed skepticism about his work. He glared at me, pulled out his book of numbers, scanned the column for my birthday, and found an afflicted Saturn. "You suffered some trauma when you were very young which has affected your whole life," he said.
I had to sit down. He'd winded me. I couldn't falsify his proposition but it's stayed with me ever since. I don't know if that's a good thing or bad, but it's impressive. He put a sort of memento mori into the back of my head, like an implant. Sometimes I cast back wondering what my trauma might have been, if anything. I brood over my life, the disasters mainly, and wonder how I can get through the next disaster (they're usually the same) more efficiently. The lesson, I suppose, is don't insult an astrologer.
Of course horoscopes aren't true, like gravity is true, or bacon. It's a prose style. Open Linda Goodman's Love Signs and you will find your own love life laid out in black and white. The very arguments you have with your spouse are there word for word. And it doesn't matter which page you open it at, or which sign you are. Astrology isn't a science or even an art, but at best it's a sort of therapy. What we can see of it is a prose style.
"While you have a sense of humour and are at bottom a decent person, you are not always appreciated by your family or work colleagues," writes Goodman. This provides a therapeutic opportunity for people to look at themselves. And goodness knows, I've had some therapy sessions as pointless as a Tarot reading. Madame Sostris could have done a better job than those qualified men the lawyers won't allow me to name.
But who knows where the line is and when we cross from the respectable to the ridiculous. Only a third of medicines work as they should, we are told. A British Medical Journal editorial recently had it that codeine was no more effective than a placebo in 60 per cent of cases. And when the subjects were told the placebo was ten times more expensive than usual, the effectiveness went up to 85 per cent. Crucially, the placebo effect was fortified by the patient spending three quarters of an hour with the doctor before taking the tablet.
This little nugget of information about the way we humans are, incidentally, overturns the basis of how to run GP services in Britain. Spending time with the shaman, or Dr Dolittle, is a crucial part of the remedy. I don't think we want a sign saying "for entertainment purposes only" above our GP's desk, do we? The belief, or faith, turns out to be a crucial part of the therapy.
Because how does your body heal? You take drugs that kill the invaders. Or you stimulate the immune system to do the same job. There's such a large mystery in that second way that mainstream science rather runs round it.
Faith healing works, sometimes, for those with faith. Conversely, witch doctors can kill susceptible people with a pointed bone. Homeopathy has no basis in science and yet it cures people whose temperament is suited to it. It calls up their latent energies, perhaps. Acupuncture has no biochemical foundation and we all remember the early Jonathan Miller precisely aware of his foot being pricked; and yet acupuncture has been used as an anaesthetic for heart surgery.
Would we want a disclaimer saying "for entertainment purposes only" at the start of an exorcism? Aha, you say, I've defeated my own argument, of course we would, and who could fail to be drawn to the spectacle? But what about those ecstatic healing sessions with snakes? Whatever's going on, there is some sort of special communion that most of us can't penetrate, and at which we don't belong.
But let's be realistic. The public clearly needs protection against unscrupulous fraudsters. We are all vulnerable to powerful and persuasive conmen who are after our money. Remember Westminster spends £600bn of our money every year. So maybe we should demand an "only for entertainment" disclaimer at the end of modern legislation? The laws, that is, that are written to "send a message" (that is, most of them).
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited




Interesting how much railing is been done at the 'outrages' in this piece.
To be sure it's an odd take, but so much legalese is being written at the moment to 'send a message' that it's a wonder any of the recent legislation makes sense at all. Oh...
I do not need a message.
Make/change a law by all means but remember that actions deafen nice words.
Unless a placebo is easier to swallow?
Posted by Mark | 02.06.08, 11:28 GMT
No, he more or less got the part with "no biochemical foundation" right. Or at least no significant biochemical foundation.
Yes it is true animals aren't subject to the placebo effect, but the people analyzing the results, calculating the statistics, can still have a huge influence on the findings. Besides, there seems to be a huge cultural bias when it comes to acupuncture studies. The huge majority of the positive studies comes from Asian countries, where the negative studies comes from western countries. Many of the studies from Asia also tend to have huge methodological errors, or small sample sizes.
Furthermore, rats - and animals in general - are not human, and any result is not directly translatable to humans. I haven't read the study yet, but their biochemical findings could also be attributed to stress, fear etc. in the animals.
Btw "well respected journals" equals argument from authority. No journal is a stamp of approval, though it greatly helps. Studies should stand on their own merits.
Posted by Tom | 31.05.08, 21:36 GMT
To say that acupuncture has "no biochemical foundation" is just plain untrue.
Many scientific studies published in well respected journals have shown biochemical changes in the blood and brain following acupuncture. Many of these studies were carried out in animals, ruling out the possibility of placebo.
Below is a reference to just one of theses studies:
Zhao RJ, Yoon SS, Lee BH, Kwon YK, Kim KJ, Shim I, Choi KH, Kim MR, Golden GT, Yang CH. Acupuncture normalizes the release of accumbal dopamine during the withdrawal period and after the ethanol challenge in chronic ethanol-treated rats.
Neurosci Lett. 2006 Feb 27;395(1):28-32. Epub 2005 Nov 10.
There are also many brain imaging studies performed on animals that show very specific areas of the brian become activated when specific acupuncture points are needled. Just type "acupuncture brain imaging" into Google and you can see the evidence for yourself.
This article was not properly researched!
Posted by Michael Arnold | 30.05.08, 21:16 GMT
So many fallacious notions, and so many flat out wrong things in such a short opinion piece. I don't even know where to start.
Well, I'll try anyway.
First off, I dare you to find a person who wouldn't find this to be true to them: "You suffered some trauma when you were very young which has affected your whole life".
And what do you mean by "stimulating" the immune system? Do you even know the slightest thing about how it functions. E.g. a boost to our extremely complex immune system would most likely do more harm than good.
To the whole paragraph starting with faith healing and ending with heart surgery... I can only marvel at the incredible inanity.
And to answer your title question... Because placebos like homeopathy can prevent people from getting a real and evidenced based treatment, and use up their limited time, money and energy, when they should focus on what has been shown to work... Providing comfort is not equal to solving the problem.
Posted by Tom | 30.05.08, 17:14 GMT
Presumably there should be a disclaimer on the doorway into all churches and other places of worship: There is no evidence for the existence of the Christian God nor of any other deity worshipped by another faith group. The Church cannot guarantee the effectiveness of any prayers that are offered up in here. They might make you feel better, but they might not.
The established Church of England is no more or less of a cult than any other two-bit group of spiritualists, palm-readers or other charlatans who want to take your money off you. And its high time that we recognised that fact. If people want to go to church, thats their lookout. But we shouldnt be drawing any distinctions between religious beliefs that are somehow respectable by virtue of their longevity and those that are more obviously the work of cranks.
Posted by Benny | 30.05.08, 15:38 GMT
Giving Comfort is fine. And things like homeopathy no doubt do this very well. But you add that "and yet it cures people whose temperament is suited to it." This is simply untrue. Plain sugar pills do no more than comfort.
The problem comes with deception - both of the customer and, more dangerously, the self deception of the trader. Recently Neal's Yard Remedies were slapped by the Medicines Regulator (MHRA) for selling homeopathic malaria prevention, as exposed by the BBC South West. This is scandalous. In this case, the Neal's Yard staff are giving false and dangerous comfort, deceiving people that their sugar pills can prevent or cure lethal diseases.
This is why the simplified Trading Standards legislation is welcome. Sometimes, giving comfort can be lethal.
Posted by Andy Lewis | 30.05.08, 07:18 GMT