As readers of my posts here and also at my own blog (see link below) will know I am (amongst other things) a financial services professional operating in the private medical market and most decidedly not a clinician. However, I have a life long interest in science and medicine that is actively encouraged by my profession and interactions with both NHS and private clinicians mean that I take a close interest into this area.

I find that a working knowledge of science, medicine and the political issues that underpin them to be immensely valuable for me day to day. I would describe my world view within this context as being ‘skeptical’. In the more modern context of the word this means that I  accept or seek to derive knowledge based upon an active application of the scientific method and would hold that the best way to test information received is using an evidence based approach.

So I would identify myself as a ‘skeptic’ and hope to apply this to all areas of my work and leisure time. You may be surprised to learn that this skeptical approach is not necessarily one that only applies to doctors and scientists and that like myself many ‘lay people’ are skeptics – there is a strong skeptical movement in the UK and around the world and I will discuss this in more detail in part 2 of this article – in fact I suspect that it is true to say that some clinicians wouldn’t necessarily fall within this skeptical mindset or even identify that strongly with many of its tenets – as I will examine during this and the subsequent article.

You see the ‘skeptical approach’ means that certain things endemic within the medical ‘sector’ and society more generally are to me as a skeptic a complete anathema. In essence my view (and notably the current scientific consensus in fact) is that many if not all of the so called :  ‘Supplements, Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (SCAM) modalities are no more than complex and expensive exercises in offering participants the placebo effect (I hesitate to call users of SCAM : ‘patients’ as they are most commonly not seeing qualified medical practitioners but rather well meaning lay people who have been effectively duped into believing a non-scientific approach to patient care is valid in some way).

So my point here is that all of the following treatment modalities are generally unsupported by proper science and as such should be rejected as viable effective treatment forms other than if explicitly acknowledged by practitioners as offering ‘comfort’ from their attention and enhancement of the placebo effect. In essence a 30 minute consultation with an a SCAM practitioner makes you feel better not from from the ‘active treatment’ offered but rather because your SCAM practitioner [insert treatment protocol of choice] : pokes you with a needle; rubs your feet, massages your aura, gives you magic water etc and then vitally spends time listening to you.

The list of SCAM’s below is not intended to be exhaustive but I would consider the following main SCAM categories as invalid treatment forms other than for the comfort/placebo process mentioned in the previous paragraph  :

Acupuncture /Acupressure, Chiropractic/Osteopathy, Homeopathy, Reiki, Chinese Medicine, Ear Candling, Kinesiology, Naturopathic medicine, Reflexology

I’m sure I am upsetting proponents of many of the above SCAM practices as they read this article but think about this for a second : There is little or no evidence to support the use of these SCAM practices. In many cases there is no plausible biological mechanism for their action – what effect there has ever been demonstrated under scientific testing tends to recede the more scientifically rigorous the study (sometimes called the ‘decline effect’)  to the point where replicating results (a vital element of scientific proof) is impossible.

Anecdotal evidence for efficacy of a treatment is not evidence – it is possible to assert any effect using anecdotes but this is a logical fallacy (the ‘hasty generalisation’ fallacy) and the fact that a given SCAM practitioner views their treatment to have worked is both unsurprising and just as likely to have arisen from regression to the mean (i.e. a user of homeopathy gets ‘better’ following their taking of a homeopathic remedy having come down with flu. Of course they would have gotten better anyway without the remedy – flu works like that). The only way to ferret out real effects from this regression to the mean effect is of course to split those treated into two groups and treat one with the so called remedy and have another as a control group and we are back in the land of blinded trials and away from anecdotal stories.

I am not going to pass comment here on what I believe to be ‘wrong’ in the practice of SCAM – it is not for me to pass judgement on what could (generously) be viewed as well meaning lay people offering placebo services to their customers – the inherent problems with using non-scientific and unproven methodology versus tested scientific protocols should be obvious – suffice to say that it is for the practitioners and proponents of SCAM to demonstrate the efficacy of their ‘wares’ using the same fundamental process as would apply to all medical procedure – evidence of efficacy and safety usually proven via robust double blinded studies and so on.

The caveat to all of this is of course that, if using the scientific method, if strong proof of a position that is contrary to my current opinion arises I will re-assess my position in light of the new evidence – this is the fundamental basis of skepticism and of course the scientific method that underpins it. So as and when a robustly constructed double blind trial proving [insert chosen SCAM modality] works is published in a respected, peer reviewed journal with results that can be replicated then I will change my opinion as should any honest skeptic.

At this point in the article I would just mention that some elements of accepted mainstream medicine (sometimes called ‘western’ medicine by SCAM proponents) are only partially evidence based or indeed wholly non-evidence based. This is a common ‘defence’ of SCAM modalities – the premise being that since all of ‘western’ medicine isn’t evidentially based so our non-scientific practice must be OK as well. Firstly this is a non sequitur – conflating the two together is not a coherent argument. Secondly there are indeed elements of medicine that fall into this category. For example the use of SSRI’s for the treatment of certain mental illness does not fall within the category of properly evidenced treatment. But thirdly, and here is where the key difference arises – the use of SSRI’s is held to be controversial and any cursory search of the literature on-line shows that mental health professionals are acutely aware of the literature available and have and will continue to change their opinions based on the changing scientific evidence.

This first part of my comment on medical and scientific skepticism was a statement of general belief and hopefully gives some background on my views as to the relevance of these kinds of SCAM therapies. In part two I am going to move on to discuss how we can educate ourselves to be wary of being taken in by non-scientific and pseudo-scientific practices in medicine and in life more generally.

If you are interested in looking at my business blog or my websites please feel free to visit my blog at :

www.localventure.blogspot.com and business websites :

www.premierchoicehealthcareltd.co.uk/consultants/phil-knight/ and







Phil Knight started work in the National Health Service in Leeds in 1989 before going to Hull University to read American Studies and then moved into private medical sales and marketing in 1994. He now owns two business focused in the private medical sector and works with senior clinicians and healthcare providers on a daily basis advising on a variety of healthcare issues. He is also a Member of the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. He is interested in all aspects of healthcare and regularly blogs on related medical, business and technology issues and also hosts the only podcast in the country focusing on private medical insurance. He is lives in Leeds, West Yorkshire but has clients across the UK and internationally. He is married to Hazel, a Senior HR Manager with two children : Megan aged 13 and Ryan, 7. His interests include technology, podcasting, science fiction and martial arts - he is a Second Dan Black Belt in Tai Sabaki Do Karate and 2nd Kyu Brown Belt in Shukokai Karate so health and fitness dominate both his business and personal life. Read his blog at http://www.localventure.blogspot.com and visit his websites : http://www.premierchoicehealthcareltd.co.uk/consultants/phil-knight/ and http://www.medicolegalmarketing.co.uk

5 Responses to A Skeptical Approach to Medicine – Part One : Supplements, Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (SCAM)

  1. David Jones

    I was looking for health related website to review many issue. Now I’ve found your blog site with lots of amazing information. You did really excellent work. I’ll read your blog regular basis.

  2. Lars Davidsson

    I think that your article is excellent!! There are far to many peculiar things going around out there- even in the NHS. We need to ask for evidence- and a belief in something is not evidence…

  3. so far I know every medicine has alternative medicine so here is no risk.

    • Phil Phil

      A thoughtful and erudite response to my post with a clear grasp of the arguments raised and conclusions reached, thanks (?)

  4. Kay

    Having read your’ scam’ listing, I find your ignorance in the lumping together of hobbies such as Reiki and actual licensed professions such as Chiropractic and Osteopathy offensive. In fact, I think you seek to influence thoughts and behaviors of the general public in a way that attempts to reflect an education that you do not have. There is no doubt there is ‘junk’ medicine by the score hanging around cyberspace and critical thinking is necessary in making the decision to see any type of physician, but what you are doing is not education but an attempt to influence people over to your point of view; which is short sighted to say the least.

Add a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *