So-called 'complementary' techniques are based on primitive, confused and mythological beliefs that have no relevance to human anatomy and biology, argues Paul O'Donoghue
Modern medicine has provided us with an immense understanding of anatomy and physiology. Perhaps most impressive of all is our evolving understanding of the anatomy of the brain. Enormous strides continue to be made in such exciting fields of science. This continued development and learning contrasts starkly with the primitive and stagnant world of the alternative practitioner.
Alternative practitioners would have us believe in alternative anatomical connections for which there is no objective evidence. These imaginary connections are explicitly referred to in three areas of alternative practice: iridology, reflexology and auricular acupuncture.
Iridologists claim that every organ of the body is reflected in the iris (coloured area) of the eye. In an article in The Irish Times Health Supplement on July 5th, Niamh Hooper reported that one of the leading lights of alternative medicine, Jan de Vries, utilises iridology in diagnosis. That he can do this is a nonsensical claim for a variety of reasons.
Firstly, there is no evidence whatever that there are anatomical connections between the iris and other organs of the body. Secondly, when tested under controlled conditions, iridologists have been consistently unable to detect medically diagnosed conditions in a range of patients. Also, they have regularly contradicted themselves in their diagnostic guesses when a single patient with a known illness has been presented successively to a number of iridologists.
Perhaps most damning of all for the practice of iridology is the fact that the iris constitutes an excellent indicator of personal identity. It is more accurate by far than fingerprinting. Despite this fact, iridologists claim to be able to monitor disease progress or improvement through changes in the appearance of the iris. This is a clear case of self-deception.
Reflexologists claim to be able to assess and influence all organs of the body by putting pressure on the feet and hands. If you consult more recent literature on reflexology that has been written by its practitioners you will note that they now avoid the terms diagnosis and treatment. This is because they can do neither.
Auricular acupuncturists claim that the organs of the body are reflected in the ear and that they can treat a wide range of conditions by the insertion of acupuncture needles or by the application of pressure to specific points on the ear. No objective evidence exists for these claims.
All three of the above systems publish complicated looking maps purporting to illustrate connections between the bodily site on which they concentrate and all organs, glands and parts of the body. These systems were developed when knowledge of anatomy and physiology was primitive and confused and bear no relevance to the way in which biological systems are in fact constructed and function.
Contrary to claims of great efficacy and accuracy due to their genesis in ancient times, these practices are useless, archaic and magical, and persist because their practitioners and those who attend them manage to convince themselves that they work in the face of monumental evidence to the contrary.
An argument likely to be mounted by alternative practitioners in opposition to my position is that there are indeed no physical anatomical connections between respective sites on the body and internal organs, but that the connections are "energetic" in nature. However, my arguments stand because the same problems arise with the alternative practitioners' concept of energy.
Whereas in science, energy in its various forms is objectively measurable, in alternative medicine this is not the case. For example, in acupuncture, an energy called "chi" is said to flow through meridians or lines of force in the body. This energy is undetectable by even our most sensitive instruments, but is said to be detectable by the hands of alternative practitioners!
This non-physical and, in my view, non-existent energy, is given different names in different cultures. For example it is also known as "ki" by the Japanese and "prana" by Hindus. It is spoken of by many western alternative practitioners as "bioenergy". In controlled experiments conducted on practitioners claiming to be able to detect such energies, all have failed to do so.
Anybody who attends an alternative practitioner for diagnosis or treatment along the lines discussed above, and who ignores mainstream medical input is running a grave risk. Many alternative practitioners now argue that they are not really "alternative" in what they do, but that their practice is "complementary" to medicine. If their practice is unproven, based on nonsensical notions and can neither diagnose nor cure, in what way is it complementary?
Iridology, reflexology, auricular acupuncture and the vast bulk of alternative practices may run in parallel with modern medicine. They do not, in any real sense, complement it. Often, practitioners piggyback on medicine, claiming its successes as their own. The relaxation, attention and listening provided by alternative practitioners may make you feel good, but do not mistake this for physical healing. Notions of physical diagnosis and healing in this context are nothing more than a shared illusion.
www.irishskeptics.net.