User reviews

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

On page 326 the authors talk about shiatsu, and they don't seem to know what they are talking about.
They mention Tokujiro Namikoshi as the creator or developer of shiatsu, which is correct, and a
bit later they say that shiatsu is based on yin/yang concepts.
For their information, Mr Namikoshi NEVER mentioned yin/yang in all his life or in his writings.
That was done by one of his students 50 years after he had opened his first shiatsu school, when both men followed very different paths.
They also say that shiatsu might be dangerous for people who are at risk of suffering a stroke.
This is absolutely true. ANY type of massage - or even going for a run - might trigger the stroke.
However, the implication in the book is that Western Massage is not dangerous for those at risk, which is completely unscientific and totally untrue.
They claim that shiatsu can hurt people with osteoporosis.
I wrote to Dr Singh asking where they got that information from.
Any scientific studies? Someone mentioned it? Or did they just make it up?
I didn't get a reply. I didn't expect one either. After all, who am I?
And finally, they also mention that there aren't enough clinical trials of shiatsu.
I agreed, but explained that this is because hospitals and research centres don't let us do them.
I challenged them to set up a clinical trial with shiatsu for people with osteoporosis.
I'd gladly participate in such a trial. Again, no reply.
This is only from one page in the book. I wonder how many other things they have made up and not researched properly.
Scientific book? Hardly.
Who were the reviewers who wrote the following?
Fearless, intelligent and remorselessly rational (rational?)
- Sunday Times
The authors' combined strengths shine through. The examination of the evidence is comprehensive [and] forensic ... (evidence?)
- Nature
A shiatsu practitioner who believes in clinical trials.

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

Clearly written, easy to read, and unstinting in it's insistence on evidence for claims made. Readers of Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column or book will find little that is revolutionary, but the explanation of the research behind the concepts is clear, lucid and pretty damning. Each chapter deals not just with specific claims made by proponents of alternative medicine, but also the evidence basis and methods that underpin the knowledge that makes up current medicine. It is this education that is arguably more valuable than the actual discussion of specific interventions. This book will make it easier to understand why there can be no comparison between "medicine" and "alternative medicine", and why practitioners of the latter spend so much time bashing the former. Pharmaceutical companies are evil, profit-hungry monsters, but despite pretentions, their alternative medicine counterparts differ only on sincerity.
Oh, and evidence, or lack thereof.

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

"Trick of Treatment" is now a "must read" for my family and friends. It lays out clearly why good science trumps opinion (and superstition). The next time someone makes a claim not backed by reliable study I'll have ready arguments. Health care is too important to entrust to hearsay. catherder 11-30-09 

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

Taking a political placebo
The radical backlash against alternative medicine allows liberals to imagine a return to their glory days of fighting against ‘menaces to civilisation’. But it sheds little
light on the real problem with the politics of health today...
Review continued here:

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts About Alternative Medicine applies the methodology of double-blind, randomized clinical trials to a number of different forms of ‘alternative medicine.’ Written by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst, the book describes the history of clinical trials and evidence based medicine: citing historical examples such as finding the cause of scurvy, evaluating bloodletting as a treatment, and the importance of hygiene in hospitals, as empirically and statistically demonstrated by Florence Nightingale.
The bulk of the book consists of an examination of four very common forms of alternative medicine: looking at the clinical trials that have been carried out on them, as well as meta-analyses and systemic reviews that evaluated the quality of those studies and their conclusions. In general, the determinations made about the treatments are not very positive:
* Some evidence suggests that accupuncture can be effective for treating pain and nausea, though higher quality studies have generally found less evidence than more problematic ones. No evidence was found that accupuncture treated any other condition, despite how practitioners have advertised it as a cure for many maladies
* Homeopathy was shown to be no better than a placebo at treating any illness. This is really no surprise, since the philosophy behind it is bunk and the ‘medicines’ are demonstrably just water.
* Chiropractic therapy was shown to have comparable effectiveness to conventional physiotherapy in treating back pain, though with significant risks that do not exist for the latter treatment. Specifically, the ‘high velocity low amplitude’ manipulations used can tear blood vessels in the spine, causing strokes and infarctions.
* Some herbal remedies were shown to be effective (such as Saint John’s wart for mild to moderate depression). That being said, much evidence was uncovered of ineffective treatments (including many of the most common), contaminated medications, lax oversight, and possible adverse interactions with pharmaceuticals, when people do not inform their doctors about herbal supplements they are taking.
Perhaps most disturbing of all is the evidence of very poor medical advice provided by alternative care practitioners. All homeopaths surveyed suggested (completely ineffective) homeopathic remedies to protect against malaria during an extended trip through Africa. Chiropracters were willing to perform adjustments on the delicate and developing spines of children and infants, as well as perform adjustments without warning or notice about the significant risk of damage to blood vessels in the spine. Alternative practitioners of all stripes advised parents to avoid using highly effective vaccines on their children, and sometimes told people to discontinue conventional therapies for diseases as serious as cancer and AIDS, leading to suffering or death.
The book also covers a number of critical related topics, including the placebo effect, regression to the mean, the reasons for which large numbers of people (and doctors) have faith in alternative therapies, and issues about medical ethics. In an annex, the authors provide more concise summaries of the research done on many other treatments: ranging from reiki to meditation to yoga. Some are deemed effective, others harmless placebos, while some are identified as dangerous.
I definitely hope this book gets a great deal of public attention. Many of the abuses described are very serious. Unfortunately, the people who would probably benefit most from the book are those who are least likely to accept its analysis and conclusions. The logic of the double-blind, controlled, randomized clinical trial is extremely powerful. Most impressively, it produces unbiased results, even when the thing being tested is not fully understood. For instance, fresh fruit was identified as a cure for scurvy long before the mechanism of action was known. If alternative therapies were as effective as claimed, that would show up readily in the thousands of

User ratings

5 stars
4 stars
3 stars
2 stars
1 star

All reviews - 13
3 stars - 0
2 stars - 0
1 star - 1

All reviews - 13
Editorial reviews - 0

All reviews - 13