Categories
Cancer Complementary and alternative medicine Integrative medicine Medicine Quackery

ASCO: Endorsing the Society for Integrative Oncology’s “integration” of quackery into oncology

In 2014, the Society for Integrative Oncology first published clinical guidelines for the care of breast cancer patients. Not surprisingly, SIO advocated “integrating” dubious therapies with oncology. Last week, the most influential oncology society, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), endorsed a 2017 update to the SIO guidelines, thus endorsing the “integration” of quackery with oncology and paving the way for insurance coverage. The advance of quackademic medicine in oncology continues apace.

Categories
Bioethics Clinical trials Medicine Politics

As I predicted, the exploitation of desperate patients using right-to-try begins

I warned you. I’ve been warning you for four years. Now that a federal right-to-try law has passed, the profiteering has begun. Let patients beware!

Categories
Autism Bad science Medicine Pseudoscience Quackery

The facilitated communication empire strikes back over the Midwest Summer Institute

Earlier this week, the University of Northern Iowa faced severe criticism for hosting the Midwest Summer Institute, a conference on facilitated communication. Yesterday, FC advocates struck back.

Categories
Autism Bad science Medicine Pseudoscience Quackery Television

The University of Northern Iowa promotes facilitated communication quackery

The University of Northern Iowa is hosting a conference on facilitated communication, despite multiple warnings from academics that it’s quackery and overwhelming evidence that it is the “facilitators” who are actually producing the claimed “communication” from nonverbal people and a history of producing false cases of child abuse. Why is UNI being so dangerously irresponsible?

Categories
Complementary and alternative medicine Integrative medicine Medicine Science Skepticism/critical thinking

Science versus “ancient ways of knowing”

Science is the most effective means of determining medical treatments that work and whose benefits outweigh their risks. Those who promote pseudoscientific or prescientific medicine, however, frequently appeal to other ways of knowing, often ancient ways of knowing from other cultures, and pointing out deficiencies in SBM to justify promoting their treatments. Do their justifications hold water?