Kicking Against the Pricks

the Skeptic, Vol 13 No 1

by Dr. Stephen Basser

One of the commonest criticisms directed at scientific medicine by supporters and promoters of so-called ‘alternative’ medicine is a lack of consultation and co-operation.

This is often used as an effective ploy in trying to generate public support for unproven therapies. The alternative practitioner appears in public and expresses the view that they are genuinely interested in co-operation, and would be involved in more collaboration, if it were not for the close minded attitude of the ‘orthodox’ doctors and their exclusivist approach.

The generation of public support (and sympathy) is enhanced if a public appearance can be arranged with a representative of this supposedly closed minded fraternity. This unsuspecting individual will undoubtedly be asked to explain why they are refusing to engage in dialogue with the obviously caring, genuine, and persecuted alternative practitioner.

Once on the defensive, the options are limited and it is easy to see how the public comes to believe the myth about these poor Galileo’s waiting for their breakthrough to surface in a sea of conservatism.

At the risk of being labelled a party pooper, I thought readers of the Skeptic would be interested in my own real life experience of attempted dialogue.

In late 1991 I formed the Australian Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a non-profit organisation whose primary objective is to provide health practitioners and the public with scientifically up-to-date and accurate information on health issues.

In July of this year the first draft of the ACSH’s position paper on acupuncture was prepared and was sent out for review to a variety of individuals and organisations.

I felt it was important to receive critical comments from a diverse range of people including those who I imagined would disagree with the approach taken (western scientific perspective), and so sent the draft to the following groups:

1. Acupuncture Ethics and Standards Organisation
2. Australian Acupuncture College Inc.
3. Victorian Traditional Acupuncture Society, Pty.Ltd.
4. Australian Medical Acupuncture Society

The initial reply I received from the Australian Acupuncture College Inc. was hand written, and is presented here in full:-

Dear Dr Basser.

The position paper you sent me reeks of the AUSTRALIAN SKEPTICS. Maxwell Smart could have constructed a better cover.

How would you and your fellow skeptics feel about a medical academic who, as a member of a senior scientific working party, funded by the Australian Tax Payer, misreported the findings of a Coronial Inquiry (not just in one report but in another after his misreporting had been pointed out to him) and distorted and misquoted the findings of scientific research (again in 2 reports). He must have thought that the people he was attempting to do a job on were "INTELLECTUALLY UNEDUCATED"

What a miscalculation! Would the Skeptics not be a little "SKEPTICAL" of this person’s credibility and scientific integrity?

Wouldn’t he be an embarrassment to THE SKEPTICS?

They might have to put out a report warning the Australian public to BE SKEPTICAL OF THE SKEPTICS.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Kerry Watson,
Principal

P.S. Give my regards to the INTELLECTUAL GIANT.

The only other reply I received was from the Acupuncture Ethics and Standards organisation who, in essence, asked for information so they could assess the credibility (in whose eyes, I wondered) of the ACSH. They were also bothered by my association with the Skeptics and like the acupuncture college did not provide a single specific response to the position paper.

The following is an extract of my reply to this group. I sent a similar letter to the acupuncture college.

I believe I was honest with you about the perspective that the draft acupuncture document was written from. That is why, in asking for your comments, I suggested a critical and comprehensive response.

It would be easy for me to interpret your letter as saying that if this draft document has any connection with the Skeptics, then you do not consider that it is worth a response. This would be a disappointment. Surely, if the aim was to release an unbalanced anti-acupuncture document, I would not have bothered to consult you at all?

One of the criticisms directed at ‘orthodox’ practitioners is that they have a dismissive attitude towards any therapeutic modality that is different to what they are familiar with - that they will not even consider an alternative viewpoint and refuse to engage in dialogue.

I have never attempted to hide the fact that I have been trained in a certain way or to deny that this gives me a certain perspective.

I believe that I have honestly communicated a willingness to challenge this perspective and to consider any issues on their merits.

I choose not to dismiss a person’s views or ideas or thoughts merely because of who they are, or because they belong to a particular organisation, and I believe in responding to all inquiries with an honest reasoned reply.

Obviously you are free to choose to ignore my request for your input, but I cannot understand how such an action helps in furthering the dialogue process.

I received no reply from the Acupuncture Standards and Ethics Organisation.

Dr Kerry Watson sent me a copy of an article from the December 1990 Australian Journal of Acupuncture accompanied by a piece of paper with the handwritten message "WHERE IS YOUR CREDIBILITY?" written in orange highlighter pen. There was no accompanying letter and still no specific response to the draft paper. There has been nothing provided since then by any of the organisations.

I read the article that Dr Watson sent me, and in it I found the following passage:

The Working Party laid itself open to the very sort of criticism that supposedly followed from the adoption of a legal process by failing to invite traditional acupuncturists into an open debate in which they had the opportunity to hear and to endeavour to meet points advanced against them.

Well, let it be stated clearly, lest any of the mentioned organisations attempts to use this very criticism once the final ACSH acupuncture paper is released (and it will be out by the time this is published) that they have been "invited into open debate", and have had the opportunity to "meet points advanced against them" and have declined.

I have presented in this article the only responses I received and I would be surprised, to say the least, if any readers of the Skeptic are able to interpret these as attempts at cooperative dialogue.

I am left to wonder who is behaving in a closed minded and dogmatic way in this case? Who is not prepared to venture away from their comfort zone? Who is unprepared to respond to valid questioning?

In view of such a response is it so unreasonable to question whether these organisations are in fact interested in the process of dialogue, or whether this is merely empty rhetoric designed to help in gaining public support?

The ACSH position paper on acupuncture will be published in future issues of the Skeptic, beginning with Vol 13, No 2.

Any reader who is interested in the paper before then may obtain a copy by sending a SSAE (at least 235x120mm or 91/4x43/4 inches ) to P.O. Box 62, Heidelberg, VIC 3084.

Consumer information leaflets, suitable for patients and other lay readers are also available.

Critical comments or any questions about this are welcome!