So the PDF didn't work for me. Got something better that a screen grab though... Google Cache doesn't forget!
APRIL 5, 2016
Science Deniers in the Twenty-First Century
by
JULIAN VIGO
In recent years, science has been up for debate, a position that was not unfamiliar to the likes of Galileo and Darwin. But who would have thought that in the twenty-first century scientific evidence would usher forth death threats and even violence to the transmitters of certain lines of scientific inquiry?
Take for instance Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (also known as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis) whereby researchers into this condition have been regularly harassed and threatened should the research suggest that cognitive behavioural therapy or exercise therapy be effective in treating CFS, a fact demonstrated by research.
Simon Wessely, professor of epidemiological and liaison psychiatry at King’s College School of Medicine in London, has been under attack for many years by those in the CFS community who decry any psychiatric approach to this condition. Even though last year in the
USA a panel made the claim that CFS is physical and not psychological, there is no international consensus on this matter. In fact, there is much evidence to show that many illnesses such as CFS—even when primarily physical—respond well to changes in the psychological state of the patient. Hence, there has been much advocacy to remove the stigma of CFS as psychological even before any evidence to the contrary. The resistance to the idea that CFS has a psychological component was met with outrage despite evidence that shows that wellness measures such as graded
exercise therapy (GET) and cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) are two of the most effective treatments for the condition.
Similar to advocates who want to control how CFS is discussed and treated by physicians, is the group of anti-science followers of what they term “chronic Lyme disease.” These individuals hold a similar anti-science following as the CFS advocates as they critique western medical practices in treating Lyme disease falsely maintaining that it is caused by a persistent infection and they demand long-term antibiotic treatment:
Although unsupported by scientific evidence, a belief system has emerged for some activists over the past 20 years—that Lyme disease can cause disabling subjective symptoms even in the absence of objective signs of disease, that diagnostic tests for extracutaneous manifestations of Lyme disease are often falsely negative, and that treatment with antibiotics for months or years is necessary to suppress the symptoms of the disease, which often recur despite prolonged antibiotic therapy….Believing that they were chronically infected, these individuals formed support groups and sought treatment from “Lyme literate medical doctors” (LLMDs)—physicians who specialise or claim to be experts in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with what has been called chronic Lyme disease.12,13 The overall result is that many patients who receive long-term treatment have no convincing evidence of ever having had B burgdorferi infection, by history (sometimes including having never been exposed to ticks, never having been in an endemic area, and never having had objective clinical findings suggestive of Lyme disease), physical examination, or laboratory test results.12,13 Even children with autism are thought by some LLMDs to have persistent B burgdorferi infection as the cause of the disorder.14 (
Auwaerter, et al)
In the USA, The Infectious Diseases Society of America is the organisation taking the brunt of protestors’ ire as this is the nonprofit organisation with the mandate to improve the health of individuals and communities representing physicians and scientists while also having the authority to mandate treatment guidelines. Thus, Lyme disease activists are suspicious of the IDSA and their perceived collaboration with the medical association and the insurance industry.
Dr Paul Auwaerter, clinical director for infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins University Hospital, does not believe Lyme disease is a chronic illness and likens the social movement around Lyme disease to conspiracy theories of the Kennedy assassination and global warming. While others such as Leonard Sigal, M.D. show the risk factors for those who have PLDS (post Lyme Disease Syndrome) and psychological issues, “such as depression and maladaptive belief systems.” In the end, chronic Lyme disease is still believed to be a complete fiction by most medical practitioners today simply because there is no scientific basis.
From the
climate change conspiracy theorists to the
anti-vaccination movement to other various
science denying conspiracies, there is no shortage of controversial topics out there fraught with advocacy groups pressuring—even threatening—medical professionals to construct the science they desire to be evidenced. Where science has a bias for reality, medical advocates most often have an “allergy” to any science that does not meet their demands.
While this is a fascinating cultural paradigm, the larger question we must ask is why has healthcare become an advocacy issue such that the proponents who highlight certain health conditions are also pushing for specific means as to how to treat the condition, as if the social justice warriors were themselves doctors and scientists? When the patient becomes her own doctor or the political advocate requires that doctors ascribe to certain treatments or beliefs, medicine is caught within a neoliberal machinery which creates on-demand prognoses and treatments. Certainly, political advocacy is an
important and necessary tool in any civil society which is essential to expose bias and bigotry. For instance,
gender differences in diseases like CFS have lead to some doctors to
dismiss women’s claims as “hysteria” rather than address the somatic issues at hand. On the other hand, to abuse the power of political advocacy such that
medical practitioners fear conducting their work because scientific evidence leads them to certain treatments interrupts the mandate of medical and scientific practices, diverting scientific efforts from seeking out the truth of various medical conditions.
Join the debate on Facebook
Julian Vigo is a scholar, film-maker and human rights consultant. Her latest book is Earthquake in Haiti: The Pornography of Poverty and the Politics of Development (2015). She can be reached at: julian.vigo@gmail.com
