Alternative medicine: under the microscope

Natural Health, Sept-Oct, 1998

Mehl-Madrona: I have 10 other studies that I could refer to with the same findings as Spiegel. And so my sense is that Dr. Sampson has a point of view and that that point of view will be the only point of view that he will accept research on. In other words, if the research supports that point of view, it's "good" research. And if it doesn't, it's "poor" research.

Sampson: I want to contest that right away and not let you get away with that, because that's not the case. I take serious offense to that remark and I would challenge you to prove it if I show you my data. I'll be glad to show this and I don't know where your 10 studies are either, because Dr. Spiegel doesn't refer to 10.

Mehl-Madrona: That would be an interesting thing to do, for each of us to pull out all the studies that we believe support our point of view and then to debate the studies.

I'd like to re-emphasize my point, however, that sometimes both therapies that are scientifically supported and ones not scientifically supported may be helpful for a patient. Recently I had a patient come in and say, "I've got multiple sclerosis and I believe that calcium EAP will help me. And I want an IV line put in so I can have this treatment." I said, "I don't know anything about that." When I read up on it, I found that there really are very few studies but that it's being commonly done. I said, "I'll tell you what. If you will accept the risks, then we'll do this thing. And we'll measure your response." He said, "Yes, I'll take the risk." And this particular man got up out of his wheelchair and started walking after his calcium EAP. Now, do I know why that happened? No, I don't. I don't know that it was the calcium EAP. It may have been the healing power of placebo.

Sampson: Although this is a free country, we don't have the freedom to act irresponsibly or out of ignorance. But that's what's being proposed for alternative medicine. We are not ignorant, we know a lot, and we should act accordingly. There are standards and the standards are sometimes difficult to create, but they're there.

My approach to medicine is consistent with that of about 95 to 98 percent of physicians in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Europe, and other places.

Granted, it's a consensus, but it's a scientific one. And when physicians speak to one another, they know what they're talking about. It is not a matter of simple opinion between two physicians, but rather a matter of deep symbolic importance to society. I would like to know how this conversation would sound if meteorologists were discussing alternative meteorology or pilots were asking passengers which route to take.

Mehl-Madrona: Well, the patients that I see primarily are patients who haven't benefited from conventional therapies. And if we're so smart, then why aren't we helping these people?

Sampson: The answer to that is we help most people and the patients you're seeing fall in several categories. Most of them are socially disaffected from the system. They're not helped because they have conditions for which, perhaps, either we don't have anything very good for them--not to say that an alternative treatment is any better--or they have perceived that they're not helped. There are plenty of those people around, and if a physician can't tell what's motivating a patient, and can't tell what the problem is with the patient, then I think there's a problem with the physician.