Issue link: https://www.massageandbodyworkdigital.com/i/1256819
SOMATIC RESE ARCH known as a red herring: appealing to prejudices surrounding something's origin to discredit it not due to its content, but due to its source to shut down an argument. A solid argument does not need to do this; it can effectively stand up to scrutiny and overturn wrong claims by using rational argumentation and solid evidence. Using fallacies to avoid taking this route suggests cognitive bias, intellectual dishonesty, and an inability to form an argument. In turn, this discredits whoever commits these fallacies and makes it far less likely that their views will be heard. All too often, this tarnishes the whole field they represent. If those in the fields of bodywork and integrative health want—as I presume most do—to earn the respect and validation of the wider establishment, then they have to play by the rules. Put simply: if you want to play baseball, you need to follow the rules of the game. In this case, those are the rules of the scientific method and reasoned argument. To win the game, we need to play. To play the game, we need to know the rules so well that we cannot be disqualified or disregarded for overstepping them. It is sad that Caulfield is correct on many points. It is true that mistaken, misguided, or downright false scientific claims are being made and shared within the bodywork and integrative health communities, often with the best of intentions due to a simple leap of logic or a lack of specialized skills. It is also true that unless this is addressed, it is likely to have a damaging effect on the perception of these professions, undoing years of hard work by leaders who have fought to shake off the "underdog" image and bring maturity and respectability to these fields. Example 1: Elderberries A real-life example I recently encountered on social media includes the claim that elderberry syrup is a powerful antiviral that can protect us from COVID-19, based on a belief in age-old traditional medicine. There is indeed some evidence to support the conclusion that at certain dosages, in certain usages (note these caveats), with appropriate timing, preparations using Sambucus nigra or related elder species can—under some circumstances—reduce viral load for some viral diseases and inhibit influenza virus types A and B and herpes simplex-1 virus, while also improving some flu-like symptoms. However, these studies were small, in some cases poorly designed, and noted numerous contraindications and warnings regarding potential side effects if mixed with other medication or used in certain types of patients. In this example, there appear to be clear indications that an old natural folk remedy indeed has the potential for further study and may well be highly beneficial. 7 The evidence thus far has been gathered in a systematic review (considered the highest form of evidence that gathers all available studies on a topic according to certain parameters, and evaluates and aggregates their results). Unfortunately, the studies covered in the review were all graded as moderate evidence due to design flaws or study size. A more recent review on the same topic concluded that "a deficit of studies comparing these S. nigra products and standard antiviral medications makes informed and detailed recommendations for use of S. nigra extracts in medical applications currently impractical." 8 In short, because there has not been enough research to compare whether elderberry extracts can do a better job than existing medications—and because not enough is known about its safety profile in higher doses or other conditions—currently, scientists cannot conclude one way or another as to whether it can be widely prescribed for influenza, even though we know it appears to be beneficial. Does the meager evidence we do possess mean that qualified practitioners can safely recommend S. nigra products to alleviate the symptoms of influenza? If the actual formulations have been deemed safe, then yes, it seems that they can. But does this same evidence support the conclusion that "influenza is a virus, COVID-19 is a virus, elderberry is good for influenza, therefore elderberry can cure COVID-19?" No, it does not. There are three fallacies built into that assumption: the bandwagon fallacy (where tradition validates the theory), the appeal to nature fallacy (if something is natural, it must be ideal), and the composition fallacy (because elderberry is good for one virus, it must be good for all viruses). The current lack of evidence does not mean that elderberry may not eventually be proven to be beneficial for It can be difficult to tell the difference between true scientific research and scientized theory; in truth, it can fool the most intelligent of readers by playing to the emotions or known biases of the audience precisely due to the lack of hard facts. N e w ! A B M P P o c k e t P a t h o l o g y a t w w w. a b m p . c o m / a b m p - p o c k e t - p a t h o l o g y - a p p . 45