A common criticism of alternative health care is that it isn’t “scientific” like modern medical care is assumed to be. But many have questioned how science based our current health care system really is.
Modern medical care certainly has embraced technology. X-rays and MRI allow us to look into the body, giving us images we never have been able to see before. Very sensitive blood tests measure levels of hormones and other chemicals at incredibly small concentrations, such as parts per million or even parts per billion.
But there is a big difference between having access to high-tech equipment and the application of this technology to the real world of health care. A good example is screenings for breast cancer. It would seem logical a technology that detects breast cancer at an early stage would prevent more women from developing the disease and ultimately fewer deaths from it. This is what mammograms are for, and they have been used for years to screen women.
The problem is they don’t work very well. It’s not that the images are not clear or that they don’t show cancers; it’s just that women who get screening mammograms don’t seem to die any less frequently. In a recent study of 90,000 Canadian women, half of whom did not get regular screenings and half of whom did, there was no difference in mortality from cancer between the groups.
Because of the results of this and similar studies, a Swiss medical review board called for the elimination of routine mammograms in their country, with the thought of saving many women from a course of treatment that may not have any benefit.
A similar situation exists for the use of MRI for low back pain. Despite the quality of the images, there actually is a poor correlation between changes seen on the MRI — such as disc ruptures or arthritis — and the patient’s degree of back pain.
But there does not seem to be much change in how patients are treated, and doctors have not passed this information on to their patients. Screening mammograms are the norm, and any patient with back pain typically gets an MRI to “see what’s going on.”
A group of medical providers formed an organization called “Clinical Evidence” to look at the research status of about 3,000 treatments. Their conclusion? Only about half of all medical treatments have enough research behind them to even know if they are effective. Of the half that have been studied, only 11 percent are “clearly beneficial” and 24 percent are “likely to be beneficial.” The remaining 15 percent are known to be ineffective or even unsafe. But this does not seem to affect the use of these procedures.
A study of the medical care of more than 12,400 U.S. patients found that about 45 percent had care that was not consistent with current research-based protocols.
To further complicate matters, the quality of medical research has been seriously questioned. One researcher claims that because of financial pressure, bias and the need to be published, more than half of medical studies are false and follow-up studies cannot duplicate their findings.
I am not writing this to attack medical care. Many treatments are helpful, even lifesaving. But medical care also is a leading cause of death in developed countries, and the assumption a test or treatment must be “scientific” just because a doctor orders it is not necessarily a safe bet. The belief that an alternative treatment is less effective because there is little or no research to back it up also is not a good assumption.
Dr. Michael Noonan practices chiropractic, chiropractic acupuncture and other wellness therapies in Old Town. He can be reached at noonanchiropractic@gmail.com.