"We here have long lamented the creeping infiltration of quackery into medical academia in which modalities once considered quackery, such as acupuncture, reiki, naturopathy, homeopathy, and various other dubious treatments, have found their way into what should be bastions of science-based medicine (SBM).
Over the years, we have noted the proliferation of “integrative medicine” programs and residencies in medical academia, and professional conferences, the credulous teaching of CAM modalities as part of the normal medical school curriculum. (Georgetown University even had a program where acupuncture meridians and points were taught during gross anatomy.)
...Once hard-nosed, science-based medical journals have, unfortunately, started publishing what can only be described as credulous endorsements of quackery.
We’ve documented many examples of this shameful phenomena over the years, but I’m about to document a whopper of an example now in, of all places,
The BMJ, which has now published two “state of the art reviews” on “integrative medicine” that can only be described as fully buying into the false paradigm that quackery needs to be “integrated” with medicine.
- The first “state of the art review is about the management of chronic pain using complementary and integrative medicine by Lucy Chen from the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Translational Pain Research and Andreas Michalsen from the Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics and Immanuel Hospital in Berlin.
- The second is about complementary and integrative medicine in the management of headache by Denise Millstine, Christina Y Chen, and Brent Bauer, all from the Mayo Clinic. Sadly, both Harvard and the Mayo Clinic have become bastions of quackademic medicine.
The evolving language of “integrative medicine”—or whatever they’re calling it this week..."