Oct 07 2008

A “Shruggie” Awakening – One Doctor’s Journey Toward Scientific Enlightenment

ED. NOTE: Circumstances have dictated an unexpected change of plans; so you’re in for a treat. Dr. Val Jones is starting two days earlier than previously announced. Beginning next week, her posts will appear regularly on Thursday mornings. Harriet Hall’s post scheduled for today will appear on Thursday this week. Be ready; it’ll be the return of the cholesterol “skeptics.” Now, Dr. Val…

Greetings, everyone. I am a proud new member of the Science Based Medicine blogging team, and have committed to one post each Thursday morning. As part of my “grand entrance” onto the skeptical blogging stage, I was hoping to introduce a new noun into our lexicon. I’ve asked permission from Steve Novella and David Gorski, and they’ve given me a wink and a nod, so here goes:

Shruggie (noun): a person who doesn’t care about the science versus pseudoscience debate. When presented with descriptions of exaggerated or fraudulent health claims or practices, their response is to shrug. Shruggies are fairly inert, they will not argue the merits (or lack thereof) of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) or pseudoscience in general. They simply aren’t all that interested in the discussion, and are somewhat puzzled by those who are.

I’m sure you’ve encountered shruggies in your daily life. They are quite common – in fact, they may actually be in the majority among healthcare professionals. And I have a confession to make — I used to be one myself.

If you’ll indulge me, I’d like to tell you the story of how I was awakened from my unhealthy indifference toward pseudoscience.

I grew up on an organic dairy farm in rural Canada, the daughter of Manhattanite intellectuals who turned their backs on the city in search of a “wholesome” environment for raising children. They took pride in learning to live off the land, and (although their cow-herding skills lacked a certain efficiency) we made out all right. My early years were filled with practical problems (escaped animals, weedy gardens, and frozen pipes) with concrete solutions (lasso the cow, remove the weeds, melt snow for water). I ate my share of carob – an unpleasant, chalk-like substance appropriate for children with pica and a vague interest in chocolate – and spent a good deal of time selling fresh yogurt at farmers’ markets and health food stores.

My life took some twists and turns, eventually landing me back in New York City where I attended medical school, graduating from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. After a short flirtation with Emergency Medicine, I completed a residency in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, a specialty that is not dissimilar to farming if you consider that getting people up and moving is 50% of what we do. Whether it’s improving mobility with assistive devices, managing pain, or good old-fashioned cajoling the injured to get out of bed – we PM&R docs are a pragmatic lot, and rather friendly to boot.

Given that background, it’s not entirely surprising that I hadn’t developed any particular antibodies to pseudoscience during the course of my development. In fact, I had a rather “shruggie” attitude about it – in other words, I assumed that frank quackery was a fringe movement that had little influence on medicine, that “natural” products were generally healthy, and that many alternative practices were harmless though probably ineffective. I ended up working in the medical publishing world, engaged in peer review of scientific literature.

I met my first “integrative medicine” enthusiast a few years ago (we’ll call him Dr. John – and I will have to change some of the facts of the case to preserve anonymity, but I’ll retain the spirit of the events). He seemed nice enough, though somewhat fixated on yoga and determined to consume an inordinate amount of spinach. John was exceedingly friendly to coworkers and I noted that he spent most of his time socializing rather than working. Soon he was asked to help me with my editorial and medical review workload, and I gladly handed over a good amount of it since I was putting in 80 hours a week at the time, just to keep my head above water.

Much to my surprise, John did not do a good job of catching inaccuracies and seemed preoccupied with some kind of “bias” that he read into every article. He seemed to feel that articles from sources like the Mayo Clinic were too “narrow” and did not list “all the options available” for the treatment of various diseases and conditions. When I asked him to explain which modalities were being left out – he cited things like acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, and herbal supplements. I questioned whether there was evidence that these things were of value, and he explained that of course there was “because they’ve been used for thousands of years.” I responded that shamanism had been used for thousands of years too, but that I wasn’t convinced of its efficacy. Instead of chuckling and agreeing he launched into a diatribe about the persecution of shamans, and at this point I realized that something was terribly wrong.

Soon thereafter John convinced our supervisor that we needed more diversity in our editorial content. Without my agreement or approval he sealed a business deal to license a large volume of content from an alternative medicine source. Since I was still the primary medical reviewer, I had to sift through this new content to make sure it conformed to our medical review policy. As I read through this new volume of content I found it to be poorly written and journalistically weak – and the subject matter of article after article was unfamiliar to me. Colon cleansing, liver flushes, systemic yeast overgrowth, energy healing – it all sounded far-fetched, and so flawed as to be almost humorous. It was utter pseudoscience – full of silly jargon and implausible “mechanisms of action” that defied what I knew of pathophysiology and even basic chemistry and physics. I looked around to see if I was on Candid Camera – but alas, it was not a joke.

So I began researching these subjects in the medical literature to try to make sense of the content. I sought input from medical experts whom I trusted – I interviewed gastroenterologists, infectious disease specialists and even one of the world’s leading hepatologists. They all confirmed that these treatments and conditions had no scientific basis whatsoever, yet they were being widely promoted in the “natural health” world.

Still reeling from the bizarre nature of this new pseudo-scientific babble, and utterly convinced that promoting false information to patients was unethical, I told John that I simply couldn’t approve any of these articles for publication. John protested that I was “putting a gag order on content” and that he’d do whatever it took to go around me to promote his pro-CAM agenda. He went on to call me “a racist against CAM…a dinosaur, part of a dying breed of physician… and paternalistic and narrow.”

His insults were so clearly out of keeping with who I am (although being accused of being a paternalistic dinosaur was actually quite amusing, considering how young and female I was) that I began wondering where all this vitriol was coming from. Sincerely confused, I began searching the medical blogs for answers. Was John an anomaly or part of some kind of a coordinated, hostile movement against medicine as I knew it?

When I happened upon Respectful Insolence at Science Blogs it was as if a light went on for me. I read post after post about the same illegitimate therapies that were being promoted as treatment options for all kinds of very serious illnesses. I began to realize that these alternative medicine practices were not the innocuous “natural” solutions that I’d once assumed they were. This was modern day snake oil, and it was a 22 billion dollar industry. Patients were being terribly misled about their conditions and the treatments they needed to get better - and some were even dying in the process.

When John approved a chelation therapy article for publication, encouraging parents to seek out DAN practitioners for the treatment of autism, I knew that the line had been crossed. First of all, there is obviously no causal connection between mercury and autism. Secondly, innocent children have died while undergoing this risky and unnecessary procedure. I knew then and there that I had to fight to protect moms and dads from this dangerous and false information. I had gone from feeling “shruggie” about pseudoscience, to lobbying to protect the lives of children.

Meanwhile, John launched an internal campaign among the people at our publishing company. He had spent more time than I had socializing with them, and they were therefore inclined to believe his side of the story. He continued to argue that I was narrow minded and was trying to suppress ideas. He even began to say that I was “a credibility risk to our brand.”

Once I’d realized the insidious nature of the harmful practices packaged under the banner of “integrative medicine,” my peers listened to my concerns with a shruggie attitude. It was that same state of indifference that I had been in when I first met John.  Now I saw how dangerous it was, and the natural progression that follows “open-mindedness” about a blend of practices that range from nutrition (which is really part of traditional medicine) to homeopathy (utter snake oil).

I’m afraid that Steve Novella is right when he says,

Very deliberately, modalities which are scientific and mainstream, like the proper use of nutrition, are often included under the CAM umbrella by proponents in order to make it seem like CAM is a bigger phenomenon than it actually is, and as a wedge to open the door for the more pseudoscientific modalities.

I also agree with George Lundberg,

There is no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking. Whether a therapeutic practice is “Eastern” or “Western,” is unconventional or mainstream, or involves mind-body techniques or molecular genetics is largely irrelevant except for historical purposes and cultural interest…

The infiltration and whole cloth acceptance of pseudoscience (often being marketed as health and wellness practices) is misleading the public, fleecing our patients, and putting our children at risk. All the shruggies out there should soberly consider whether or not it’s ethical to remain indifferent and/or silent on the matter. Perhaps you don’t realize how high the stakes are (the very foundations of the scientific method and the integrity of our profession are indeed being attacked), or perhaps it will take a personal experience (as it did for me) for you to have an awakening. I sure hope that you’ll join the pro-science movement before lies seep deeper into the public consciousness through an Internet teeming with for-profit fake cures. In fact, Dr. John is out there hoping to open your mind to the notion that your body is full of toxins that only his practitioner friends can detect.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

45 Responses to “A “Shruggie” Awakening – One Doctor’s Journey Toward Scientific Enlightenment”

  1. Psychotic_Chimpon 07 Oct 2008 at 3:38 am

    An excellent first post, I enjoy hearing the “path to passion” for promoting science. I look forward to your next article Dr. Val.

  2. Michelle Bon 07 Oct 2008 at 7:11 am

    ‘Dr. John’ is a dipsh*t.

    Great first post which is making me look forward to more.

    Shruggies need to have that crimp/cramp in their shrugging shoulders be relieved by simply stopping the shrugging and joining the supporters of evidence-based medicine. Or else that nagging shoulder cramp may influence them to go to dipsh*ts like Dr. John for relief.

  3. DevoutCatalyston 07 Oct 2008 at 7:18 am

    To remain a shruggie is to participate in the ruination of medicine.

    My first encounter with CAM was via “orthomolecular medicine”, as an allergy patient back in the late 1970s. The office looked the same, the manner of dress was the same, how’s a patient to know that their new doctor is NOT the same? One tip was when other physicians would refer to this guy as a “quack”. The contempt was palpable, and this was an important clue, because one tiny little secret amongst many patients of alternative medicine is that this stuff doesn’t work. It may be hard for a patient to make or voice that realization in the environment set forth by the practitioners of CAM, the resistance towards negative patient feedback can be stifling.

    For me, the most damning statement against CAM is their refusal to evolve and set aside practices when shown to be ineffective. Shuggies are ineffective, too, and it’s time for physicians to let go of the idea that remaining neutral is an option. Learning how to deliver scientific truths to patients, with both clarity and respect, is a key towards building patient trust, and towards the betterment of medicine.

    Welcome aboard.

  4. daijiyobuon 07 Oct 2008 at 7:21 am

    Along the lines of “shruggies out there should soberly consider whether or not it’s ethical to remain indifferent and/or silent on the matter” & if this is ‘harm’:

    “the principle of nonmaleficence requires of us [medicine] that we not intentionally create a needless harm or injury to the patient, either through acts of commission or omission”

    (see http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/princpl.html#ques3 ).

    Is indifference / silence an act of omission — in certain circumstances — and therefore a violation of a major principle of medical ethics?


  5. Vaklamon 07 Oct 2008 at 7:46 am

    Thank you for this post and welcome to the site!

    My conversion from shruggie to active debunker came from a personal experience, too: the birth of my son. It is heartening to read the words of a medical professional who is campaigning against the ‘alternative cures’. Keep up the great work. I’m looking forward to your future posts.

  6. jonny_ehon 07 Oct 2008 at 9:41 am

    Great post Dr. Jones. (I always wanted to refer to someone as that)

    When did the events that you described take place? Was it this past year? Or 10 years ago? You mention Orac’s blog, so it couldn’t have been too long ago.

  7. qetzalon 07 Oct 2008 at 10:08 am

    IMHO, this is one of the best posts on the CAM problem that’s ever been posted.

    Kudos to Dr. Jones and the rest of the SBM team!

  8. Meadonon 07 Oct 2008 at 11:34 am

    Shruggie… I like it.

    Good post and welcome! :-)

  9. Karl Withakayon 07 Oct 2008 at 4:10 pm

    Home run on the first pitch!

    Welcome to ScienceBasedMedicine.org!

  10. Kimball Atwoodon 07 Oct 2008 at 5:08 pm

    “Home run on the first pitch!”

    I couldn’t have said it better.

    And yeah, Val and Rob, it’s a matter of ethics. The way we ’60s radicals used to put the “act of omission” thang was: “if yer not part o’the solution, yer part o’the problem.”

  11. daedalus2uon 07 Oct 2008 at 6:00 pm

    Or as Edmund Burke said “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

  12. daijiyobuon 07 Oct 2008 at 9:27 pm

    It’s actually a myth that Burke said the above — directly, literally — though I like it a lot.

    Per wikipedia,

    (see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke )

    “there is no clearly definitive original by Burke.”


  13. […] Shruggie (noun): a person who doesn’t care about the science versus pseudoscience debate - Newest Science-Based Medicine blogger Val Jones recounts her journey from indifference towards crap-based pseudoscience to skeptical blogger. […]

  14. hermanon 08 Oct 2008 at 4:06 am

    great post! welcome

  15. David Colquhounon 08 Oct 2008 at 4:13 am

    I just love “shruggie”. I think that it will become part of my vocabulary from now on

    To take only one example, It describes precisely the attitude I found among most (not quite all) Yale academics when I spoke there about (inter alia )Integrative Baloney @ Yale . Most were unaware that it was going on, rather shocked when they realized that “a more fluid concept of evidence” was part of their colleagues credo. But then just shrugged their shoulders and said ‘what can we do about it?’.

    The answer is that they could do a lot if they’d just stop shrugging. It seems hard to get the message across that the CAM folks aren’t just a separate group of harmless nutters, partitioned off safely from every one else. but are making a major contribution to distrust of real science. They bear witness to the corruption of the whole university system that can be nought with a few megabucks from NCCAM or Bravewell

  16. […] I am on the whole a “shruggie” when it comes to complementary therapies (as expounded by Val Jones). And I have no hard […]

  17. KristinMHon 08 Oct 2008 at 8:53 am

    Great post. So what did you do, Dr. Jones? Did you quit, or stay and try to steer the journal back to scientific medicine?

  18. daedalus2uon 08 Oct 2008 at 9:29 am

    How about this quote then also attributed to Edmund Burke?

    Nobody makes a greater mistake than he who does nothing because he could only do a little.

  19. daijiyobuon 08 Oct 2008 at 11:42 am


    The quotes are great. All of them. No matter who said them.

    One I employ often, written by Fanon:

    “make of me always a man who questions.”


  20. Joeon 08 Oct 2008 at 1:22 pm

    @ David Colquhoun,

    With deference to Steve Novella, who is appalled by quackery at Yale, the shruggies are up against deans who see pots of money supporting quackery. However, where is the AMA accrediting board? For example, the American Chemical Society threatened to drop the accreditation of a school where a colleague of mine was using a sub-standard text in a required class (and it was an inferior text). Why can’t the AMA do this?

    @ Val, as a “Founding Reader” of this blog- I welcome you.

  21. Fifion 08 Oct 2008 at 1:53 pm

    Joe - It seems to me that both power and money are actually the root causes of CAM entering medicine (whether it’s via academia or medical institutions like hospitals, be it on the teaching or providing “medical” services side). Sure there’s the pretense of it being an ideological battle (and no doubt that’s how some people engaged who engage with CAM promoters on an ideological level see it and how they attribute cause, particularly those invested in certain ideologies in a way that integrates personal identity and self image - always fertile ground for our unconscious biases and blindspots! I don’t exclude myself from this assessment, of course). However, it’s very clear if you follow the money trail and look at this in terms of practice not theory that supplement manufacturers and various other Big CAM players use a very, to be polite, flexible “ideology” to try to obscure their dirty little secret - that they’re even more corrupt and dishonest than Big Pharma and promoting pseudoscience to support their pseudo-religion (after all, isn’t that what new age beliefs are, religion for people who want to pretend they’re rebels while submitting to an orthodoxy?). The ideology (or whatever sloppy excuse for religion and/or science they’re promoting) is really just window dressing for the main intent, to establish themselves and gain credibility by association so they can make more money from more sources. Every time they distract people from their main activity, making money through lying to people, they win. It’s a very basic PR and political tactic that’s clearly very effective since it helps them frame the science vs pseudoscience issue as a culture war or ideological battle.

  22. Fifion 08 Oct 2008 at 1:55 pm

    That should read…

    Every time they distract people’s attention from their main activity, making money through lying to people, they win.

  23. Jurjen S.on 08 Oct 2008 at 3:20 pm

    It’s not often one reads a neologism that is so compelling, but “shruggie” immediately makes the grade. Excellent debut.

  24. Val Joneson 08 Oct 2008 at 9:50 pm

    Thank you all for your very warm welcome. I’m so excited to be part of the team. I hope to do all I can to wake up those shruggies and make this world a safer and more transparent place for our patients. :)

  25. Perky Skepticon 09 Oct 2008 at 9:30 am

    I’ll add my belated welcome to Dr. Val! Great first post, and so glad you joined the anti-shruggies! (I used to be a huge CAM advocate myself, and now I’m atoning! ;) )

  26. clgoodon 09 Oct 2008 at 2:22 pm

    You’re off to an excellent start, Dr. Jones. I love “shruggie” and will work to make it part of the language.

  27. Dianeon 11 Oct 2008 at 12:02 pm

    Hi Dr. Val,
    “Shruggie” is a great word. You might want to consider contributing it to the Wonder of Words blog to help it move further out into the world.. here is a link:

    I found Wonder of Words by accident one day, looking for the origin of the word “churnalism.”
    I have since contributed my own word, “dopameme.”

  28. […] of unscientific so-called “alternative” medicine infiltrating its way into medicine coining a new term that may well become more widely used than anyone could […]

  29. steveknope@msn.comon 12 Oct 2008 at 4:31 am

    For a wonderful taste of the true absurdity of the snake oil peddled by the CAM tribe, check out my PBS television debate with Dr. Andrew Weil on You Tube.


    During this debate, Weil states that he cured his own allergies to cats by dropping LSD, and that he would use LSD to treat patients if the drug were legal. I kid you not!

    Steven D. Knope, M.D.

  30. wertyson 12 Oct 2008 at 11:54 pm

    Welcome Dr Jones !

    Great to have another rehabilitationist on the blog, I sometimes feel so lonely in the speciality !

  31. […] 2 bloggers are added to the Science-Based Medicine blog - After adding Dr. Val Jones (whose other new blog is Getting Better With Dr. Val) to the blog last week, SBM is adding Dr. […]

  32. […] of my shruggie friends have peered at integrative bakery items with vague interest. The fudgy exteriors are […]

  33. […] conversation that I had with my favorite pseudoscientist, “Dr. John” (you might remember him from my first post). This is what he said to me one day: There are no trials comparing drug X to drug Y in the setting […]

  34. […] bullsh*tters for liars in the past. I’ll be glad to label them more correctly in the future. Dr. John is first on my […]

  35. […] skills training” for Dr. LaPierre is the only “justice” they can expect. Please don’t be shruggie about alternative medicine practices. The final common pathway of deception is destruction. This […]

  36. […] medicine” (CAM), a large proportion of which is unproven if not outright quackery–shruggies frequently ask, “What’s the harm?” I can reply that so many of these modalities […]

  37. NeuroLogica Blog » What’s the Harm?on 17 Dec 2008 at 7:57 am

    […] before - it’s called whatstheharm.net. As the name implies, it is an answer to those “shruggies” who do not see unscientific or fraudulent medicine as a problem. The site catalogues cases […]

  38. […] recently came across this article about how we should be a lot more concerned about alternative medicines than we’ve been. […]

  39. […] most of them do not see it as a major problem. Dr. Jones characterized this attitude as the “shruggie” attitude, and it’s a perfect term. Equally perfect is her analogy as to why […]

  40. […] saved countless thousands of lives and CAM erodes it. Science-based medicine has coined the term shruggie. Here is the definition: Shruggie (noun): a person who doesn’t care about the science versus […]

  41. The Crack Emceeon 15 Jan 2009 at 5:00 am

    Dear Dr. Val,

    I, too, think “shruggie” is a great name, but I’d like to ask you to give some thought to Dr. John. As you noticed, his behavior clearly wasn’t normal - “he’d do whatever it took to go around me to promote his pro-CAM agenda” - and I say he was a cultist.

    I have been trying to get someone to focus on the cult aspect of the problem, but the science community has adamantly refused to acknowledge it, except as a sidebar to the problem, like calling the followers of Jim Jones “weird” stopped The People’s Temple from marching into the jungle.

    As your experience proves, these people are not just weird but sinister.

    - CMC

  42. Placebo for Dummies « Northern Doctoron 30 Jan 2009 at 7:00 am

    […] some of the more outlandish alternative therapies are ludicrous. Many people, and in particular GP shruggies, are quite prepared to accept CAM because of the widely perceived wonderfulness of […]

  43. […] passionate I am about protecting the public from misleading health information. I have witnessed first-hand many well-meaning attempts to “empower consumers” with Web 2.0 tools. Unfortunately, they were […]

  44. Jane Q. Publicon 13 Feb 2009 at 3:14 am

    I want to know what transpired after that. I mean, obviously Dr. Jones eventually overcame this situation. I would really like to read the story of how it went.

  45. CarolynSon 13 Feb 2009 at 1:28 pm

    It was Eldridge Cleaver who said “If you aren’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”

    Another kind of “shruggie” unfortunately is someone who accepts that some completely unproven practice with no evidence should be put into effect immediately just in case or because it fits in with their cultural prejudices. For instance taxing soft drinks to combat obesity. (”Well of course we have no actual evidence this would make a difference, but it can’t hurt and it MIGHT work.”)

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.