What's wrong with having aromatherapy, acupuncture, and other alternative medicines on the NHS? They can't do any harm and even if it only makes people FEEL better rather than actually make them better what harm can it do?
That's roughly the argument you'll here some people make when you discuss alternative medicine with them (if medicine works it tends to be just called medicine, no need for the word alternative) and Michael 'Marsh' Marshall, Project Director of the Good Thinking Project and all round good egg, was at Greenwich Skeptics in the Pub in The Duke of Greenwich (last time in that venue as, sadly, the pub is closing - not the first time this has happened with Greenwich Skeptics - a curse!? - soon, though thankfully they've found a new venue in the nearby Plume of Feathers - alas on a Monday, quiz night on BBC2, rather than a Wednesday) to thoroughly debunk such ideas in a talk he'd given the none too snappy title of Using Data to Counter Quackery and Alternative Medicine.
Luckily the talk was much snappier. Marsh is a great speaker and a fantastic communicator though I still suspect the reason my blog about Flat Earth belief from 2019 is the most viewed EIAPOE blog (38,800 and growing) is probably more to do with a Macedonian bot factory than Marsh, myself, or even Flat Earth belief.
As a full time Skeptic (where can I get that job?), Marsh has looked into the NHS wasting money on homeopathy and found that the majority of it goes to four homeopathic hospitals in his home town of Liverpool, in London, in Bristol, and in Newcastle). He observed that the consultations were full of homeopathic obsessives so his team got involved in that and brought science and evidence to the table with the result that the NHS now very rarely funds homeopathic treatments - and have saved themselves £5,000,000 through mass cessation of quackery funding.
Marsh went on to speak about a woman he read about who claimed that mistletoe injections were keeping her breast cancer at bay (an idea that originally comes from the occultist and self-proclaimed clairvoyant Rudolf Steiner) but mistletoe has been proven not just to not cure cancer but to be very dangerous. As Marsh said, it's up to the individual if they want to try dangerous, potentially lethal, methods but it's up to the newspapers to report these stories accurately and, by and large, they're not doing so.
A feel good story told the tale of a mother of two who claimed that drinking raw fruit juice was curing her cancer. The Daily Mirror picked up this story and ran with it though when she, not long after, tragically died of a cancer that she had been given a 90% survival chance of the Mirror went very quiet. Woman dies of cancer is, sadly, not as good a story as woman finds miracle cure for cancer. Lovely fluffy human interest stories are rarely based in fact. They may have a kernel of truth in them somewhere but inaccurate reporting skews the picture in a very dangerous way.
It's hard for those of a skeptical or rational bent to make any headway. If you approach the patient then you're seen as the bad guy - for obvious reasons like taking away crumbs of hope from a person in a near hopeless situation. It's never constructive to tell people off in life and it's certainly not constructive to tell off well meaning donors to JustGiving or GoFundMe pages who have acted out of kindness. Shouting at journalists, often time poor and stressed about deadlines, doesn't work so the obvious answer would be to confront the 'clinics' who offer these alternative, and often very dangerous, 'treatments'.
The trouble is that many of them are abroad. Often in Germany, Mexico, and the US, and are therefore outside the jurisdiction of UK trading and advertising standards authorities. Often the people who run, and work at, these clinics are true believers rather than grifters. More difficult still is that some of them are very very libellous which I'll come on to.
Marsh took a deep dive into fundraising on JustGiving and GoFundMe related to people with cancer. He looked at the treatments, often incredibly expensive, that people were raising money for. He looked to see if they were scientific or pseudoscientific treatments and he also looked at the results. Are the people raising money for treatment still alive now?
Covering a two and half year period, he found five hundred and ten pseudoscientific appeals that between them had raised over £6,000,000 in donations. Half of that large sum of money went to one clinic in Germany. Just over 40% of these appeals saw positive press coverage and a thoroughly depressing pattern emerged.
It looked like this. Patient #1 comes off chemo, begins to feel better (but not get better), patient #1's story is picked up by the papers so patient #2 becomes inspired to do the same. Then patient #1 dies. By that point patient #2's story has been covered by the papers and patient #3 becomes inspired. Needless to say that patient #2 is, by then, also dead. It's a conveyor belt of people being exploited in the last few months of their lives by a very litigious German clinic that has threatened to sue the BBC if they cover the story and have also threatened families of the bereaved with legal action if they try and do anything. Understandably, in the depths of grief and often having lost almost all of their money, most families choose to draw a line under this terrible sequence of events.
Marsh was able to find that just shy of half of the people using these fund raiser have since died of the cancer that they'd been told by quacks was curable. He suspects, but can't prove, that the figure is likely much higher. A predatory clinic forcing people to die penniless so they can essentially steal all of their money. Cancer is terrible and tragic but if you have only six months left do you really want to leave your loved ones penniless as well as grieving. Do you really want to spend those last six months of your life drinking raw fruit juice and having coffee enemas? I don't think I would.
Although I concede I've not been diagnosed with a life threatening condition yet so don't know in reality how I would react. One of my best friends was - and he died of cancer - but he was at least able to spend his last weeks and days surrounded by family and friends, surrounded by love. I think I'd prefer that to a rapacious quack offering me 'medicine' that doesn't work. It's immaterial at that point if they're grifters or true believers.
Marsh talked about some of the other related work he'd done (including a pseudoscientific cancer charity in the UK that uses homeopathy to 'help' Botswanan rape victims!) and he took a particular interest in NHS maternity wards that have been placed in special measures because of increased examples of bad neonatal results.
Some of these maternity wards, mainly one in Gloucester, were advocating use of aromatherapy and water jabs for women in pain during pregnancy and childbirth. Rawdogging it basically. Women, it is well known now, have for years not been believed by a lot of the medical establishment when it comes to health issues but surely it's just common sense to offer doctors and actual medicine to women in pain during childbirth and not aromatherapy.
Marsh found examples of pregnant women being given jasmine for pain relief, lavender for healing of wounds, grapefruit for fear and panic, bergamot for depression, and geraniums for irritability. It's cheaper than offering professional medical staff and proper medicine but the downside is that it can, and it has, result in women dying during childbirth.
Studies into the efficacy show that aromatherapy doesn't work except, it seems, in Iran and to a lesser extent in Turkey where independent researchers have questioned the validity of the studies. It seems odd that a medicine would work in two countries but not in others. It seems much less odd that vested interests may manipulate studies to get the results they want.
The studies from Iran are seen, and used as evidence, by people involved with our own NHS resulting in some very disastrous outcomes for pregnant women in the same way that the move towards quackery is causing premature death and robbing people of dignity in their final days. So if the question is "what harm can it do?" then the answer is "a lot".
Thanks to Greenwich Skeptics in the Pub, host Chris French, The Duke of Greenwich (for the last time), Paula - for chatting, and, most of all, Marsh for, as ever, en enlightening and impassioned talk.