I have seen a number of treatments for CFS touted on e-mail groups which might be termed 'miracle cures'. These treatments typically rely on anecdotal evidence of efficacy, often require the customer to subscribe to particular beliefs, and their proponents resent and reject any criticism of the product. I have noticed a common theme to these posts, common arguments which show up repeatedly despite there being different treatments offered. I describe each sentiment or claim below, and my response to it.
"I am offering a treatment that works. I know it works because it has worked for me and/or others."
This is called 'anecdotal evidence'; that is, you are asked to rely on the word of the proponent that their treatment is effective.
One may wonder whether the opinion of a proponent who produces the treatment is entirely objective when they stand to make money from its sale - a clear conflict of interest.
Conventional medical treatments such as pain killers are tested with a number of scientific methods to establish they're effective. An example is a double-blind test, which attempts to check that any benefit from the product is not solely due to the placebo effect. Scientists would also attempt to single out the active ingredient in a product and demonstrate how it interacts beneficially with the body. These tests establish a treatment is effective no matter what the opinion or belief of the observer. As most of the world's regulatory bodies demand these tests be conducted before a product is certified as safe and effective, it's not too much to ask if the proffered product has been subjected to them.
"Anyone who wants to get better ought to try my treatment. Not wanting to try my treatment indicates you don't want to get better."
This is a highly manipulative guilt trip designed to twist the knife in one of the most common anxieties people with chronic illnesses experience; namely, that their continuing illness might be their own fault, and is caused by a lack of will power. Society places a great deal of pressure on a sick person to recover, and naturally most are happy to comply. However, those left with a chronic illness despite their best wishes and hopes often feel guilty that they have not fulfilled everyone's expectations by recovering, despite the fact it is clearly no fault of their own. As author Kat Duff notes in The Alchemy of Illness, "...the first commandment in illness is to get well. Sick people are under tremendous pressure, from themselves and from others, to overcome their ailments and return to life as usual in our fast-paced, production-oriented world."
CFS is a very individual illness, and what may work for one person will not automatically do so for another. Furthermore, people with CFS tend to have unexpected and sometimes severe reactions to substances (such as foods, cleaning chemicals and medicines), and caution is called for when trying a new and/or unknown product.
A sick person has every right to choose which treatments they try, and to ignore treatments that strike them as spurious, costly or dangerous. It is pertinent to note manufacturers of conventional treatments, such as the above example of pain killers, do not make such spiteful claims in order to intimidate their potential customers.
"Science and scientists are too narrow-minded to research or understand my treatment. There are lots of things science has not and cannot explain and my treatment is one of those. Therefore, being outside the realm of scientific understanding, my treatment ought not be criticised by scientists or scientific methods."
If a scientist researches anything, and examines it with scientific methodology, it is in the scientific realm. Science, after all, is a way of looking at the world, a way that tries to establish objectivity and repeatability in its observations. The offered treatment is obviously an element of the world and hence a reasonable subject for scientific criticism.
While an individual scientist may be narrow-minded, science itself cannot be, in the same way as mathematics, physics, or logic as disciplines can't have any one 'attitude'.
It is true there are things science cannot currently explain, because science is always turning to new discoveries and theories in active development. If this wasn't the case, scientists everywhere would be out of a job. However, this does not mean that science will never be able to explain something currently inexplicable, or that the eventual explanation will necessarily conflict with current scientific theory.
Has the offered treatment been subject to any scientific tests, or has the correspondent decided it is beyond the capacity of scientific understanding independently?
It is ludicrous to attempt to cut off criticism of any kind by arrogantly disallowing it. Anything is open to criticism, just as those criticised have the right to reply to that criticism. After all, if the treatment is as effective as claimed, it will withstand criticism.
"Science has been wrong in the past and therefore cannot be trusted to be correct in this instance."
Scientists would be the first to admit that scientific theories have developed and changed over time. This is how science moves ever closer to the truth, by testing old assumptions and checking to see whether modern observations validate existing theories. However, this means science is always the most correct and the most tested it has ever been.
It does not follow that because science was wrong in one past instance it is likely to be wrong in this instance. It is certainly no more likely to be wrong than blind faith.
"It is unscientific to criticise my treatment because to do so is narrow-minded and doesn't show appropriate scientific curiosity."
Plenty of things are investigated by science and found to be wrong, ineffective or unimportant. Being 'scientific' does not merely involve curiosity, it also involves rational evaluation and criticism. After all, theories shown to be correct withstand all the evaluation and criticism in the world. Pure curiosity is only one element of the overall scientific approach.
"I am only trying to help. Don't criticise my treatment because it will make me feel bad physically and/or emotionally."
Help and new suggestions are appreciated, however our critical faculties are still present despite illness, and if something strikes us as questionable we voice our opinion. While inflicting emotional or physical harm is emphatically not the purpose of criticism, it is hardly reasonable to say criticism is not allowed due to the correspondent's extreme sensitivity. It may be just as emotionally and physically harmful for a sick person to raise their hopes, spend money on this treatment, invest time and energy in trying it, only to find it is ineffective.
It is remarkable how many proponents of 'miracle cures' take criticism of the product personally. It is as though they cannot separate the treatment itself from their own feelings and beliefs. This defensive response is easily as argumentative as any criticism may be.
"Any and all criticism is fueled by jealousy, hatred or some similar negative emotion, rather than legitimate concern."
Obviously, this may be true in individual cases, but it is not fair to generally declare that criticism is evidence of jealousy or hatred. This is a defensive, emotional claim that neatly avoids any relevant response to the actual criticism.
I believe chronically ill people have a right to accept or reject treatments offered to them, and that they do not have an obligation to try anything no matter how outlandish just to 'prove' they want to recover. It angers me greatly that unscrupulous manufacturers will blithely play on a sick person's fears and anxieties just to make money. The fact that proponents of 'miracle cures' have to stoop to these manipulative and obfuscating tactics says little for their ethics or the value of their products.
