WHAT'S EATING STEPHEN BARRETT?

[Guest guest]

Alternative Medicine

You Don't Have to be Sick: On the Edge with Burton Goldberg

What's Eating Stephen Barrett?

 

 

 

Let's look at this set-up carefully. Barrett and his " quackbusting "

colleagues say they are working to protect the public against health

frauds. They don't want the public to waste its money on " sham "

treatments that don't work. In the paradox of " quackbusting, " the

quackbusters say they're protecting public health, but in fact,

they're abandoning the public to their own suffering to protect the

financial interests of conventional medicine, which has no interest

in or ability to produce benefits for these conditions.

 

He says he's using science to protect the public from expensive fad

diagnoses, but if this " quackbuster " has his way, the public will

have no recourse but conventional medicine for their health problems.

 

 

Recently, I set myself the exercise of trying to understand what

motivates a self-proclaimed " quackbuster " to write a book debunking

an entire field of medicine. A " quackbuster, " as we've come to know

over the years, is someone who is dedicated to casting aspersions on

alternative medicine, regardless of whether there is any factual

basis.

 

As alternative medicine continues to grow more popular-an estimated

42% of Americans now use it-the " quackbusters " are growing more

clamorous in their denunciations of our field. They have to be-

they're almost a minority view.

 

Multiple chemical sensitivity, sick building syndrome, food-related

hyperactivity, mercury amalgam toxicity, candidiasis hyperactivity,

Gulf War syndrome-these are all costly misbeliefs and fad diagnoses,

says Barrett. " Many Americans believe that exposure to common foods

and chemicals makes them ill, " he says. " This book is about people

who hold such beliefs but are wrong. "

 

Not only are patients wrong, Barrett says, they are " financially

exploited as well as mistreated. " They are duped by " far-fetched "

notions and " dubious claims, " by headline-crazed media and " toxic

television, " and by " physicians who use questionable diagnostic and

treatment methods. "

 

Patients presume they are being made allergic or toxic or even being

poisoned by the mass of modern chemicals, cosmetics, cleaning agents,

drugs, and other human-made substances. They are mistaken, says

Barrett. Their misbeliefs are especially hard to understand, Barrett

says, " at a time when our food supply is the world's safest and our

antipollution program is the best we've ever had. "

 

Patients' symptoms are mental (psychosomatic) in origin- " they react

to stress by developing multiple symptoms. " Their symptoms are not

caused by chemicals or dietary factors, he says. In fact, Barrett

suggests that some patients are " hysterical, " others are " paranoid, "

and the rest have " certain psychological factors " that " predispose "

them to " develop symptoms " and to seek out " questionable " doctors

(meaning alternative medicine practitioners) who will attach a ( " not

scientifically recognized " ) disease label to them.

 

Regarding Gulf War syndrome, for example, Barrett declares: " It

provides a feeding trough for serious scientists, since funding is

abundant, and for every charlatan with a newsworthy theory. " On the

matter of the dangers of mercury fillings, he states: " The false

diagnosis of mercury-amalgam toxicity is potentially very harmful and

reflects extremely poor judgment. "

 

For the most part, of the illnesses listed above, nearly all are

mere " labels " rather than legitimate illness conditions, asserts

Barrett; they're not caused by foods or chemicals; there are

no " scientific " studies conclusively proving the association of diet,

chemicals, and illness; and we are best advised to dismiss them out

of hand, he says.

 

In most cases and for most of the illnesses commonly associated with

chemical sensitivity, Barrett says the mass of mistaken patients

would be better off seeking " mental help " from a psychiatrist or

other " mental health practitioner. " Alternative medicine physicians

and especially " clinical ecologists " (the old name for practitioners

of environmental medicine, which links exposures to toxic substances

with health conditions) should be chastised, investigated, put on

notice, and if possible, put out of business, says Barrett.

 

Most of what Barrett claims can be refuted, easily and decisively.

That's not my intention here. I'm more interested in looking at the

bigger picture-what is Barrett really saying amidst his quackbusting

bluster, and why?

 

Barrett appears to be saying that the typical American patient is

stupid, hysterical or paranoid, easily duped, and generally incapable

of making a rational, correct medical decision on their own. The

patient is mistaken and wrong in thinking their multiple symptoms

have any connection to the foods they eat or the environmental

chemicals to which they are exposed. The media is irresponsible and

not to be trusted as an information source about medicine, especially

about alternatives. Doctors who practice alternative medicine are

unscientific, opportunistic frauds or quacks, peddling flawed or junk

science.

 

I next pondered what could be the purpose of this book. What could be

the result of debunking the connection between foods, chemicals,

cosmetics, and drugs with the varieties of environmental illness

(mentioned above) now afflicting millions of patients. Why does

Barrett (and his colleagues) so dislike alternative medicine? What's

eating him that he must disparage the field at every opportunity?

 

The purpose has to be this: to corral this mass of

suffering " confused " patients into the treatment pen of conventional

medicine. But here Barrett's rationale collapses. The patients end up

with nothing.

 

Surely no person suffering unexplained allergies or general toxicity

wants to be told they're stupid, mistaken, and ought to have their

head examined. And surely no patient who has abandoned conventional

medicine (because the one or two dozen doctors they consulted hadn't

a clue as to how to help them) would be interested in Barrett's

thesis. It is genuinely hard to imagine how a suffering patient could

actually be persuaded by Barrett to dismiss alternative approaches

when the conventional ones were not useful, or even worse, were

harmful.

 

But let's say, despite these reservations, patients allowed

themselves to be herded into Barrett's allopathic corral. There would

be nothing there for them. Conventional medicine has no cure or

treatment for these illnesses. In fact, as Barrett repeatedly points

out, for the most part, conventional medicine does not even validate

the existence of these illness categories and regards a diagnosis of

such illnesses as bogus medicine. Of course, Barrett does offer

patients " mental help. "

 

Let's look at this set-up carefully. Barrett and his " quackbusting "

colleagues say they are working to protect the public against health

frauds. They don't want the public to waste its money on " sham "

treatments that don't work. The false labels of multiple chemical

sensitivity, environmental illness, and the rest, do the public

a " disservice, " Barrett says, and seeking treatment for these wastes

the financial resources of insurance companies, employers, and other

third party reimbursers.

 

But since conventional medicine has nothing to offer patients

who " believe " they are suffering physical distress from these

conditions, the patients, in effect, are left on their own to suffer

some more. Barrett's plan seems to be to corral these misguided

patients into the conventional medicine pen so he can dissuade them

of their mistaken notions regarding their illness and make them " see "

that it's all psychosomatic.

 

Clearly the patients do not benefit at all from this scenario, so who

does? The makers of drugs, petrochemicals, cosmetics, synthetic food

additives, pesticides, prepared foods-in short, the massive food and

chemical industry of North America benefits. They are no longer held

accountable as causal factors in multiple symptom illnesses. They are

let off the hook. They can proceed with business as usual. There are

no poisons in their products. (See the cartoon about " quackbusters "

by Harley Schwadron in " The Politics of Medicine " section, this

issue, p. 106.)

 

In the paradox of " quackbusting, " the quackbusters say they're

protecting public health, but in fact, they're abandoning the public

to their own suffering to protect the financial interests of

conventional medicine, which has no interest in or ability to produce

benefits for these conditions. The " quackbusters " say they're serving

the public, but the truth is they're grossly disserving patients.

Thanks to Barrett's remarkable chemical insensitivity, a great many

patients will be left to suffer on their own without any diagnosis or

treatment, except perhaps another round of Prozac on the house.