I) "Alternative medical practitioners are cultists, drawing people away from the one true religion of 'scientific medicine' "

In part I of this series, we are looking to explore the various ways in which a small body of self-styled 'consumer advocates' have campaigned to denigrate and suppress alternative health practices. Under the guise of 'consumer protection', they seek the removal of nutritional supplements, herbs, homeopathic remedies and other over-the-counter health products from the marketplace, as well as the outlawing of health practices that they consider 'dubious', 'unproven' or 'quack'. At the same time, these so-called "quackbusters" (as they are popularly known) continue to advocate and defend such practices whose safety is, at the very least, controversial: practices such as the widespread use of pesticides, the inlaying of dental amalgam fillings, the fluoridation of the drinking water, and the implementation of such psychiatric methods as electro-shock therapy. This raises the question: is it really the consumer they are out to protect, or rather a body of beliefs and a system of healthcare that happens, not coincidentally, to be tied to strong economic interests?

But before exploring that question, we should say a word about who these quackbusters really are. Most of them happen to be board members of at least one of many interlocking organizations, such as The National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), and the Commission for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). All of these organizations have as their common purpose the ostensible exposure of scams, frauds, and unproven methods in the fields of science and health. Among the more prominent names in the quackbuster movement are Dr. Stephen Barrett, a retired psychiatrist and frequent contributor to Consumer Reports and other publications; Dr. William T. Jarvis, a self-proclaimed "expert on the psychology and epidemiology of quackery"; Dr. Victor Herbert, professor of medicine at Mt. Sinai Hospital, New York City and outspoken critic of natural dietary programs, herbs and nutritional supplements; Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, co-founder and president of the American Council on Science and Health and advisor to the EPA on pesticides and other toxic substances; and Dr. James Harvey Young, professor emeritus of History at Emory University and author of several books tracing the history of quackery in America.

Through the years these quackbusting personae have developed very strong ties with the media, while at the same time decrying the media's continued interest in alternative medical stories. They blame reporters of various news outlets for being "nonjudgmental" in their coverage when they should, in fact, be outright critical and condemning of all alternative health practices. Dr. Stephen Barrett complains that stories about alternative health "tend to be treated more sympathetically than they deserve."

Quackbuster investigators like to boast that they have the whole alternative health "scam" figured out. These "health robbers", as they are referred to, are claimed to be able to play upon public gullibility through invoking deceptive sales techniques, unreliable testimonials and unfounded claims. While the quackbusters acknowledge the sharp rise in consumer interest in alternative health, they prefer to attribute it to a conspiracy of disinformation, rather than to growing dissatisfaction with the existing health care system and increasing public awareness regarding health issues. Like the proverbial confidence man, the alternative health promoter is able to inspire confidence in his patient by evincing more sympathy and consideration than his orthodox counterpart. "Most quacks manage a superb 'bedside manner'." (JH Young) But once the treatment is over the patient realizes, to his dismay, that the conning practitioner has only relieved him of his money and not his pain (wink, wink). With this misguided stereotype, the quackbuster has reduced the alternative healthcare experience to a kind of Aesop's fable--the moral of which is to not place your trust in anyone who uses unorthodox healing practices, lest you be scammed.

Of course, this simple-minded myth-making bears no trace of journalistic fact. Any real medical investigation would look to examine a health practitioner's case file, talk with the patients about their healing experiences, and do follow-ups with patients currently undergoing treatment. The quackbuster investigatory method, on the other hand, is aimed at trying to tear apart the practitioner's credentials, build a 'criminal file' on how many times he/she has been challenged by the 'authorities,' and mount a general smear campaign, since they have no interest in finding out whether the alternative therapy ACTUALLY WORKED.

The whole phenomenon of quackbusting really dates back to the 19th-century. Today's quackbusters are heirs to a long and checkered tradition of 'protectors of the orthodoxy.' Not unlike the zealous churchmen of the Middle Ages, the quackbusters are dedicated to the routing out of all forms of medical heresy, otherwise known as "quackery." Quackery is defined as "the promotion of an unproven health product or service, usually for personal gain." (Barrett & Herbert) Once more, the alternative practitioner is broad-brushed as a sleazy con-artist only out to make a quick buck. Never mind that the average acupuncturist, massage therapist, or homeopath, for example, earns far less than the average MD. For many practitioners it's a real struggle to make ends meet; and if it were not for a genuine reverence for the art they practice and a dedication to their patients' well-being, they could easily find more lucrative work elsewhere. The quackbuster's persistent portrayal of the alternative care-giver as some cartoonish snake-oil salesman is both patently inaccurate and an insult to thousands of truly dedicated healthcare-givers across the country.

Among the forms of natural therapies blacklisted by the quackbusters are nutritional supplements, herbs, acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, alternative dentistry, alternative cancer care, alternative eye care, orthomolecular psychiatry, clinical ecology, ayurvedic medicine and even meditation. All share the common stigma of being 'unproven' or discredited in the quackbuster's mind. Worthlessness, however, is only one side of of the coin, since the quackbusters insist that all such alternative practices can also be downright "dangerous" - although they are usually at a loss to say how. Except for a few cases cited of Vitamin A toxicity in ultra-high doses, or their favorite example of a certain brand of L-tryptophan supplements from Japan that ended up killing four people (they neglect to mention that it was due to contamination in the manufacturing plant!), they are able to offer little evidence of natural medicine's riskiness. Consequently, they are forced to admit: "Most victims of quackery are harmed economically rather than physically." (Jarvis & Barrett) However, (they claim) harm may still come from over-confidence in an unorthodox therapy, such that the patient is prevented from receiving real 'scientific' medical help. Quackbusters, of course, cannot prove that delaying orthodox therapies has resulted in a greater incidence of harm or even death, since studies have shown, to the contrary, that the survival time for those receiving standard cancer treatments is no greater than for those who have rejected all such treatments. Yet they continue to promulgate the myth as if it were fact.

Furthermore, the quackbuster tries to subvert free consumer choice by reducing the options to that of orthodoxy or 'quackery'--which is, of course, no choice at all. For example, in the treatment of cancer, either one must choose the orthodox path, or be pulled down the slippery slope of alternative cancer treatment to financial ruin and certain death. It is the same old scare tactic, over and over again. Never mind that it is possible for a successful marriage to take place between the orthodox and the alternative. For example, a woman with a cancerous tumor on her breast may wish to forgo a disfiguring mastectomy in favor of a simple lumpectomy, while at the same time supporting her immune system with certain nutritional supplements, herbs, exercise and meditation. The choice between orthodox and alternative should never be portrayed in such absolute terms as the quackbusters depict it. Certain situations may demand an orthodox approach, while others are quite amenable to alternatives. In this way a truly 'complementary' medicine becomes possible.

Still, one cannot deny that there are major differences in the way the two schools approach health and disease. The method of diagnosis and treatment in, say, Chinese medicine is qualitatively different than that of Western Medicine. It doesn't mean that it is better or worse, just different. Again, this is where the quackbuster penchant for over-simplification completely obscures all subtle distinctions. For it is completely wrong to regard the various alternative approaches as simply being more primitive and less efficacious versions of what Western medicine offers. Western medicine, for all its positive attributes, does not recognize or honor the body's natural healing capacity--a concept that informs most systems of 'natural' medicine. Natural therapeutic systems tend to employ more subtle and gentle therapeutic agents, relying upon the body's natural healing capacity to bring about the actual healing. Again, this doesn't make it better or worse categorically than the orthodox approach, just different. So to denigrate one system of medicine through referencing the authority of another system shows a distinct bias right from the start. For who, we must ask, is able to stand outside all scientific worldviews and pronounce one as correct? The reality is, no one can judge from outside a particular worldview. To characterize one system of medicine as "right" and another as "wrong" is simply counterproductive both to the possibility for constructive dialogue between the orthodox and alternative communities (defeating any chance for a complementary medicine) and to the real needs of the health consumer, who might well benefit from the best of both worlds.

It is a 'faith' in a worldview molded back in the 19th-century that supports the quackbusters contention of "rightness." So-called "scientific medicine" was a product of l9th-century advances in physiology and bio-chemistry. This led to the hope (and the 'faith') that all disease processes could be regulated at the biochemical level. Hence, the rise of pharmaceutical medicine, and the rapid decline of all natural, or vitalistic, schools of healing--which were thereafter referred to as 'sects'. These now-alternative schools of healing fell into discreditation, not because they were ever proven to be ineffective, but because a dominant medical model and dominant economic interests took over. The scientific bigotry that informs much of the quackbuster literature--insisting that one school, one worldview, is absolutely right, and the other is absolutely wrong--is the product of a zealous faith in a 19th-century medical model; a model which has borne much fruit, but may not, in fact, be completely encompassing of all reality. Its continued domination is the result of a very deeply-held faith. But then, all worldviews, scientific or otherwise, are really matters of faith, as the biologist Rene Dubos has pointed out: "Success in all callings is facilitated by the ability to inspire faith and to behave as though part of a priesthood. It is true that faith in the healing power of ancient gods has somewhat weakened, but faith itself has lost no ground to reason." (The Mirage of Health, p. 132)

So when quackbusters pontificate like pharisees of the 'one true faith', mind you, this is no mere simile. As quackbuster historian James Harvey Young intones, in words that would warm the cockles of Torquemada's heart: "In our confused climate of ideas, many dubious faiths will flourish. It is an indispensable obligation of the dedicated health professional, I submit, to become informed about false faiths marketed in the health field, to condemn them, and to cooperate with regulatory officials in their suppression." (American Health Quackery, p. 88) In such a totalist atmosphere of paranoia as these words foster, is it possible for alternative practice to ever get a fair hearing in the hallowed halls of 'scientific medicine'? For the inquisitorial quackbuster, one must either worship at the temple of medical orthodoxy, or be crucified as a heretic.

II) "Alternative Medicine is Scientifically Unproven"

While we intend to take issue with this statement in Part II of our series, it is beyond the means of this paper to quote from the reams of scientific studies that demonstrate its absurdity. Such studies are readily available, however, in orthodoxy's own peer review journals, if the quackbusters would ever take the time to search them out. (It is heartening that not all members of the orthodox scientific community are so dismissive of alternative approaches as are the quackbusters.)

And yet, if one were to pile papers of supporting evidence up to the ceiling, it would probably still not be enough to alter the quackbuster's thinking. Of course, they grudgingly admit that such supportive evidence exists. For example, Stephen Barrett cites at least two studies supportive of the use of chiropractic right in the middle of his polemic against chiropractic. In one 1991 study by the RAND Corp., investigators concluded that the use of chiropractic was effective in the treatment of lower back pain. A similar British study in 1990 had concluded the same thing. Yet, instead of accepting the conclusions of these studies, Barrett looks for ways to question their validity. He argues that, since the studies only proved that chiropractic was an effective choice for subjects within the test-group, this in no way validates the practice of chiropractic in general. Of course, this way of reasoning would challenge the validity of all clinical studies--the very icons which Barrett considers to be the benchmark of scientific truth. For how could a clinical study be framed that didn't have such limiting parameters? Any study which did not involve the entire human race would fall short of the impossible standard Barrett seems to be raising here. But no clinical study can ever hope to prove, by itself, the absolute effectiveness of any therapy. Individual studies are simply pieces of a larger puzzle, which, taken as a whole, lend credence to a therapy's effectiveness. There are many, many more studies supportive of the use of chiropractic than those cited by Barrett. So what would we do with such a body of evidence? Simply look the other way when it happens to militate against our smear campaign?

Barrett's reasoning shows quackbuster verbal trickery at its best. For on the one hand, he proclaims all medical therapies which are unsupported by clinical studies to be fraudulent, and, on the other, when they are offered clinical evidence for a particular alternative therapy, he ends up questioning the validity of the tests. Common sense says you cannot have it both ways: you cannot hold the clinical study to be the gold standard of scientific truth, and then question its validity any time it disagrees with your preconceived notions.

Another rhetorical trick used by the quackbusters is their co-opting of the word 'scientific' to exclusively validate the orthodox medical model. The term 'scientific medicine' was applied to a materialistic, physio-chemical model of life-processes that became pre-dominant in the mid-19th-century. The use of the term 'scientific medicine', therefore, is merely an act of distinguishing between the more materialistic and the more vitalistic worldviews. To say that one worldview is superior to another is simply a value judgment made from within a particular worldview, and cannot, therefore, be regarded as a statement of fact. The ostensible superiority of the orthodox medical model is just such a value judgment and not, therefore, a statement of fact. And yet, to attach the word 'scientific' to one's particular medical model is believed to instantly bestow upon it a superior status.

Yet, shouldn't the term 'scientific' apply to any medical model--not just the dominant one--which is able to diagnose and treat a wide range of cases in a predictable and controllable fashion? Logically speaking, why should the term apply only to a single medical model? If any therapy can convincingly demonstrate a cause and effect relationship between the application of a certain procedure or the administration of a certain agent and the improvement in a patient's well-being, then isn't that therapy deserving of the name 'scientific'?

If we accepted a plurality of medical models then it would no longer be necessary, as it seems presently, to have to justify all therapeutic practices according to a single medical model: the orthodox position. Quackbusters and other defenders of the orthodoxy will attack an alternative therapy, such as homeopathy, on grounds that its' ostensible mode of healing cannot be accounted for according to the orthodox model. Homeopathy uses various substances in infinitesimal dilutions as remedies. Many of these remedies are believed to be so dilute that they contain no molecular trace of the original substance. Thus, they are thought, by homeopaths, to be simply patterns of information or vibratory residues of the original substance. Those who subscribe to the orthodox medical model question how any agent, bearing no molecular traces, can possibly have an effect on the body, for the orthodox medical model acknowledges therapeutic action only at the molecular level. Any talk, therefore, of 'vibrations' or 'patterns of information' is, to the orthodox mind, utter nonsense. Hence, homeopathy, as a therapeutic system could not possibly work, according to accepted physio-chemical laws. But whether such laws are universally operative is the very issue in question, for again, we must re-state, that any judgments made about homeopathy from within the orthodox paradigm derive solely from that paradigm's laws and lexicon. Such judgments can never qualify as absolute fact, and hence, as an a priori discreditatation of homeopathy in general.

Furthermore, science has come up with more recent models, such as the quantum mechanical or quantum bioenergetic models, which make the idea of 'sub-molecular' causal action much more plausible (and 'scientific') than the older l9th-century model. As acclaimed bio-chemist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi has written: "Biological phenomena, possibly, are to a great extent the expression of such subtler changes which take place in dimensions unknown to classical chemistry. They belong to the realm of quantum mechanics and can be described only in its language." (Bioegergetics, p. 139) If there exists the possibility of explaining the subtler actions of homeopathic remedies according to a quantum mechanical or some other scientific model, then homeopathy cannot be dismissed willy-nilly as being 'scientifically ungrounded.'

When the quackbuster complains that alternative medicine is working "outside of the scientific community", what they really mean is 'outside of the orthodox community', for there is nothing inherent in alternative medicine that prevents it from being scientifically tested. Simply because various alternative therapies operate from a non-physio-chemical paradigm, it doesn't mean that they cannot be subjected to scientific methodology. Yet, the one proviso we would make is that for a clinical study to be fair and accurate, it must be cognisant of and sensitive to the methodology of that therapeutic system. To use the example of homeopathy once again: homeopathic practice is based exclusively on individualisation. This means that a remedy is chosen not on the basis of a single symptom or a single disease-name, but on the basis of an entire constellation of differentiating symptoms. A patient would not be given a remedy, say, for a head cold or a sore throat without first matching the peculiarities of the case to the proven symptom-profile of the remedy. Hence, any clinical study testing the efficacy of homeopathy must remain cognizant of the need to individualize before testing. Otherwise, the tests will offer an unfair evaluation of the therapy.

Ultimately, scientific progress is based on what works; and if more than one school of thought or method of practice is found to work, then that should be an occasion for rejoicing, not for mounting a campaign of suppression. If we could add what works from the field of alternative medicine to what works from the orthodox field (and that is something that each school of thought must continue to monitor and re-evaluate), then this would only expand the range of effectiveness of the average medical practice. The healthcare consumer, more than anybody, would be the beneficiary of a more open-minded approach--both practically and economically. A stronger alternative presence in our healthcare system would mean greater effectiveness in the area of preventative care--an area that is woefully lacking in the current healthcare scenario. The quackbusters' simple guidelines for disease prevention--avoid smoking, wear your seatbelt, eat from the basic food groups, etc.--while common-sensical, are hardly enough to protect one from disease in today's polluted, stress-filled and nutrient-depleted world.

Our system of healthcare presently takes the least cost-effective approach by treating personal health only at its crisis stage--in other words, after the health of the person has already deteriorated. Think of what would happen if we took the same approach to nuclear regulation. We would be waiting for some nuclear accident to occur before taking appropriate action.

The obstacle to promoting preventative healthcare has always been economic. It is simply more profitable for the care-giver to treat disease at its end-stage than to take preventative measures. Of course, a lot of those preventative measures depend on the consumer's own assumption of personal responsibility for his/her own health. This unavoidable fact is always met with a great deal of inertia, since disease prevention requires effort. So the orthodox healthcare-giver and the consuming public remain locked in an uncomfortable slow-dance to the music of sky-rocketing health costs and an inefficient medical bureaucracy. Where then is the hope? Kenneth Pelletier comments: "As long as medical care consumers maintain a 'Volkswagen attitude' that they can run themselves as hard as they wish to the breaking point and then medicine will repair the damage by replacing the parts, the present crisis will continue unabated." (Holistic Medicine, p. 5)

If the present healthcare system is ever to be streamlined down to a compassionate, human dimension, then alternative healthcare--with its emphasis upon prevention, individualization and empathetic care--must be allowed a greater presence in the healthcare marketplace. But for that to happen the consuming public, who have been victimized more than anyone by the suppression of alternative medicine, must stand up and demand change.

III) "Personal Experiences Cannot be Trusted"

Here in Part III of our series the quackbusters argue that, since objective clinical trials are the yardstick of scientific truth, we should place no credence in the subjective testimonies of patients regarding their own healing experiences. Even if you are certain that you've been healed by some alternative therapy your experiences will never count as proof of the therapy's effectiveness. Why? Because patients, the quackbusters assert, are unreliable witnesses, incapable of determining cause-and-effect relationships. A patient may think, for example, that his arthritis was greatly relieved by taking a certain nutritional supplement, but this is a fact that cannot be proven. "When you feel better after having used a product or procedure, it is natural to give credit to whatever you have done," writes Jarvis and Barrett. "This can be misleading, however, because most ailments resolve themselves and those that don't have variable symptoms. Even serious conditions can have sufficient day-to-day variation to enable quack methods to gain large followings."

While it is true that there are situations where one feels better and can't really put one's finger on the cause, that, in itself, is not an invalidation of all patient testimonials. After all, how else does a doctor determine whether a particular drug or therapy is working to relieve pain? In all cases where subjective symptoms (such as pain, depression, anxiety, loss of memory, etc.) are the target of the therapy there is a total dependency upon patient testimonial for case management. Usually the leading question in any doctor-patient interaction is "How do you feel?" For the quackbuster to categorically invalidate all personal experience as being devoid of truth value simply runs counter to everyday clinical practice.

Another old familiar trick used by quackbusters to confute the value of personal experience is to attribute all alternative healing experiences to the placebo effect. Wallace Sampson, for example, assures us that the effectiveness of acupuncture is "probably due to a combination of expectation, suggestion, counter-irritation, operant conditioning, and other psychological mechanisms." In other words, its healing effects are all in the mind. Thus, we would do just as well to apply some other form of behavioral modification.

Here the alternative healing experience is reduced to a case of abnormal psychology. It is a clever way of gaining control over another person's experience, as well as an effective tool for stigmatizing dissenters. A patient may think he is being treated by an acupuncturist on the physical level, but since the therapy is not aimed at directly causing biochemical changes (the acupuncturist will frame the therapy in terms of energetic flow, points and meridians) it is dismissed as imaginary--"nonsense with needles", as Sampson calls it.

Labeling an alternative healing event as a 'placebo effect' is just a lazy way of avoiding having to develop a deeper, and potentially transformative, understanding of that event. The very term 'placebo effect' is thrown around so blithely, one would think the quackbuster had a real understanding of how it worked. Yet in actuality, it is merely a cover for his ignorance, and a token of his unwillingness to try and come to grips with a new phenomenon.

Part of what scares orthodox researchers away from the world of alternative medicine is a certain xenophobia regarding the lexicons of the various alternative systems. The language of Traditional Chinese medicine, for example, expresses bodily functioning in energetic, rather than molecular, terms and so is often looked down upon as primitive and unsophisticated. The same can be said for homeopathy's use of the term 'vital force.' Yet what if the so-called 'placebo effect' were, in actuality, part and parcel of the very natural healing capacity of the body, or 'vital force', which is rejected by 'scientific medicine'? The truth, then, would never be comprehended by the dominant medical model.

Another reason why the quackbusters wish to denigrate personal experience is so that thousands of years of experience supporting the use of such therapies as acupuncture and traditional herbs can be neatly consigned to oblivion, as if they had never occurred. But is it reasonable to think that this purported health 'scam' could be perpetrated over several millennia? Of course, the quackbusters would argue that that was simply the best which 'primitive ' medicine had to offer. But nowadays, since we have so much sounder therapeutic tools, why re-visit such an out-moded tradition? Again, the answer would be that therapies from many of the older traditions offer something that is qualitatively different than what modern medicine offers: natural, non-toxic, gentle remedies and procedures which aim to heal on the energetic, rather than the molecular, level, according to the body's own natural healing capacity. You can attack and dismiss individual testimonials, but you cannot abolish the collective body of human experiences that support the validity of non-orthodox traditions.

Denying the validity of personal experiences has always been a primary form of disempowerment directed by those of a totalist mindset. Consider the various 're-education' programs in societies like Stalinist Russia or Maoist China. These were created for the expressed purpose of fostering distrust in the individual's experience and in his/her ability to make critical judgments. While the quackbuster may enter the public arena like a crusader on a white horse, defending the unsuspecting populace against enemies of deception, he is, in reality, more like the character of O'Brien in George Orwell's 1984, working to convince you that what you know with your senses isn't actually true; that 2 + 2 really does equal 5, after all. For you, the alternative healthcare consumer, aren't educated enough to know when you've been healed, nor wise enough to choose what's best for your own body.

But those who trust in the power of their minds and senses to discern truth will not allow themselves to be disempowered by those claiming a greater authority over their well-being. For if the healing benefit of an alternative therapy has made an irrefutable difference in your life, then who is some would-be 'consumer advocate' to come along and pronounce you as deluded or deceived?

IV) "The Health Freedom Movement is a Fraud"

In the final article of our series we address the quackbusters claims that those who call themselves health freedom advocates are really false prophets, simply trying to make the world safe for quackery. "Quacks," writes Victor Herbert, "seek political endorsement because they can't prove that their methods work." The health freedom movement, therefore, is simply an attempt to con politicians in the same manner that quacks try to con consumers.

Here again, the quackbusters have lined a whole group of people up against the wall, and tried to assassinate their characters, execution-style. The ammunition they use is a vicious mythmaking process, whereby those who engage in unorthodox beliefs and/or health practices are portrayed as a population of parasites and pickpockets. Nothing could be more false or defaming.

What health freedom advocates really seek is simply the right to own their own health, so that they will no longer be forced to trust in a type of medicine that is at variance with their higher beliefs. In order for such ownership to become possible, it is deemed necessary by health freedom advocates that all persons be afforded access to the type of healthcare most in keeping with their higher beliefs. For example, if one believes that nature is the one true healer--that wellness follows from observing a natural diet and utilizing natural healing agents--then why should that person not be allowed to seek out a qualified authority in the field of natural healing? After all, does anyone really believe that wisdom flows from double-blind placebo-controlled studies? So why then does the consumer require validation from a so-called higher health authority when, in truth, no one is more fit to decide what is right for the individual than the individual himself?

Since an exclusionary system of medical licensing was first established in the 1920's, it is no longer possible for qualified practitioners to obtain licenses to practice homeopathy, naturopathy and certain other healing modalities in many states. Who is responsible for this medical licensing? The American Medical Association (AMA). This causes health freedom advocates to ask: is it either fair or constitutional that a private institution (the AMA) should have the power to ban a particular form of healing practice simply because it is at variance with its particular way of thinking? Mind you, the harmfulness or ineffectiveness of the healing systems we've discussed has never been demonstrated, nor can it be, since such modalities have been used the world over and have long histories of proven effectiveness.

What would happen if we allowed a single religious denomination to assume power to grant charters to other faiths? How fair would that be? And how much tolerance do you imagine would be shown by the dominant church? Such a scenario would be a gross violation of our First Amendment rights. So how fair is it for a single, private medical institution--a professional organization for doctors of orthodox medicine, not natural practitioners--to be dictating the terms of consumer choice in matters of personal healthcare?

As long as organizations such as the National Council Against Health Fraud continue to sound off in the media and maintain an omnipresence at all legislative hearings, it is difficult for advocates on the freedom side of consumer health issues to be fairly heard. This is particularly so, since health freedom advocates and alternative health in general are constantly being put on the defensive. Quackbusters have always taken the "shoot-the-messenger-before-the-message-can-be-delivered" approach, and it has continued to be effective--until recently, that is. In May of the year 2000, legislation was passed in the state of Minnesota declaring practitioners the freedom to practice all legitimate forms of natural healing without the requirement for AMA-mandated licensing. This has been hailed as a great victory for the health freedom movement.

Still, the message which comes out of the quackbuster camp will continue to be that health freedom advocates are unprincipled anarchists, who "want to weaken or destroy government regulation of health practitioners and products." (Stephen Barrett) Others have written that the health freedom movement is bolstered by an "ultraconservative" sentiment regarding 'big government' and over-regulation. (JH Young)

Instead of extending additional freedoms to healthcare providers, the quackbusters advocate ever-tighter controls, particularly on the sale of over-the-counter products such as nutritional supplements, herbs and homeopathic remedies. Their goal is to have nutritional supplements sold only at RDA levels, and herbs and homeopathic remedies completely removed from store shelves. "[The FDA should not permit worthless products to be marketed with claims that they are effective." (Barrett and Herbert) What is irritating to the quackbusters is the idea that the FDA seems to regard such products as "benign", and, thus, has no intention of removing them from the shelves.

We know that this is not entirely true, and that the FDA has been contemplating the regulation of over-the-counter healthfood products for years. Such a move, health freedom advocates believe, would be a horrendous mistake. Not only would it ruin the manufacturers of such products, along with the companies and stores who distribute them (a prospect which quackbusters cheer on with venomous glee), but it would also effectively deny the consumer the right to his own self-care.

It is not that health freedom advocates are opposed to legitimate government regulation; quite the contrary. You will find among their ranks no greater advocates for strong regulatory measures in matters which pose a real danger to the public's health, such as in the marketing of unsafe drugs, toxic chemicals in the environment, radiation from nuclear plants, and contaminants in the food supply. But where government regulation is deemed both unnecessary and potentially damaging to the public welfare, then it must be opposed as antithetical to a free society.

But more worrisome still in the rhetoric of the quackbusters is its call for "a government crackdown" against health freedom organizations. (Stephen Barrett) This could be done through exposing the "quack practices" of many of its leaders. Furthermore, the quackbusters would like to see the entire health food industry destroyed as "a form of organized crime", since they continue to make false and "unsubstantiated" claims for their products. (Barrett and Herbert) This is clearly not the language of democratic ideals, nor of tolerance, nor of rational scientific discourse; it is the language of vindictiveness, narrow-mindedness, and scientific bigotry. So let us hope that those in positions of power, whether in government or in the private sector, are able to see through this dangerous rhetoric, and realize that the quackbuster agenda does not fall down on the side of free speech and consumer rights, nor of scientific and medical advancement, but on the side of suppression of health freedom rights, over-regulation, and an entrenched and self-limiting medical model.

Let us be clear about one thing: health freedom advocates are not promoters of quackery. They are champions of the right of free choice in personal healthcare. Neither does the health freedom movement advocate one particular form of healthcare over another. They believe in the consumer's right to choose any legitimate healthcare, so long as it poses no harm to anyone else.

Even if a Minnesota-type bill was adopted nationwide, the likelihood is that most people would go on choosing a conventional practitioner as their primary healthcare provider; and health freedom advocates have no problem with that. The purpose of any future health freedom legislation is merely to secure the rights of those who believe that natural or alternative healthcare is in their best interests.

For as long as self-care continues to grow, with more people buying over-the-counter natural healthcare products than ever before, doesn't it make sense to provide them with access to qualified consultants who can better guide them in their use of such products? While homeopathy and naturopathy, for example, are safe and effective forms of self-care, they are also complex and challenging modalities whose effectiveness is best insured under the guidance of a trained practitioner. Exempting such natural healthcare practices from AMA-mandated licensing and hostile peer review boards would allow the consumer to be properly instructed in areas of healing that are already being engaged. Rather than providing a free reign for "quackery", it would, on the contrary, facilitate a higher degree of consumer awareness in regards to self-care.

Finally, it must be said that health freedom advocates do not live in denial about the existence of quackery. Quackery has always existed, and will continue to exist whenever economic interests exceed humanitarian interests. Still, they would say to defenders of absolute orthodoxy, "Be careful what you label as quackery or as unproven, for many procedures that go on in the orthodox world are unnecessary, needlessly risky, 'experimental', and end up taking many lives. So let us be more concerned with results than with methodologies, and not cast aside safe and efficacious natural therapies simply because they don't square with a certain methodological mindset." To put the welfare of the consumer first, by providing him with the maximum amount of legitimate healthcare choices, is the best antidote to quackery. For when time-tested natural therapies are once again allowed to operate in the light of day, their worth and effectiveness can be impartially determined within the marketplace of ideas--not by name-calling panels of so-called 'experts', who really have no expertise in the areas of practice they so roundly condemn.

Yet health freedom advocates do agree with the quackbusters on one point: the old slogan "Buyer beware!" remains a valid rule-of-thumb in today's medical marketplace. Clearly not everyone who is selling you a product has your best interest in mind. But wouldn't a marketplace filled with several brands of items be a better place to shop than one which carries only the same brand, over and over again? The health freedom movement thinks so - that's why they continue to advocate for real choice in matters of healthcare.