Leave the Sinking Ship: An Open Invitation to the Wall Street Journal to Get on Board for Integrative Health Reform

I am the author of the Journal piece in question. A few points.

1. If by "discernible professional credentials in health reportage" you mean an MD, you are correct; I don't have one. I have, however, been writing about health and medicine, and the business component of same, for almost 25 years. As just one example (inasmuch as you mention "opening salvos"), my Journal piece of Jan. 18, 1994, "The High Price of Managed Care," was an opening salvo in the fight for HMO reform, widely quoted in Congress. Also, I find it interesting that a wing of the health-care industry that has always fought for respect, arguing that "credentials aren't all they're cracked up to be," is now taking a holier-than-thou attitude with me: I'm not a member of the "club," thus my ideas must be flawed. But there's one key difference between your struggle for credibility with the AMA and my struggle for credibility with you: My ideas are rooted in fact.
2. I'm "From the right"? Though I admit I've done my share of writing for the Journal, you folks should've done your due diligence: Even a cursory examination of my blog (which is mentioned at the end of the piece) would've told you that I'm an avid Obama supporter. I just don't like to see money wasted.
3. I agree that conventional medicine has not had all the answers, and has too often resulted in waste and unnecessary side effects. Does that mean that we should embrace alternatives that are based on...nothing at all? The scientific method puts the burden of proof on the person making the claim. Where is your proof? And please don't insult my intelligence by quoting ancient texts on ayurveda. Where is your scientific proof?
4. At the very least, you have to admit that there are an awful lots of outright quacks seeking refuge under the CAM umbrella. I would think the legitimate proponents of "integrative medicine" would be the people most eager to root out the charlatans. But that's not what happens. Typically everyone circles the wagons—just as you do here.

I could go on and on, but I think that's quite enough for now. I urge you to read the piece about my article posted on James Randi's site today; I think you'll find a slightly different take from the one you present here.

Both Mr. Salerno and Dr. Bartecchi miss the point of the Dr. Chopra's response:
"Evidence-based" medicine has been extremely problematic due to profit motive. The scientifically produced data that leads to drugs being certified is manipulated to create better-than-real outcomes to salvage a corporation's R&D investment in dangerous drugs.
Anyone who works with the public, especially older Americans, understands that the current model is flawed for many reasons, and people are suffering from their care, and it is extremely fiscally wasteful.
No one can say that the problem is completely rooted in the manupulated data from drug research, but for the mainstream medical community to continue to rely on "evidence-based" as the backbone of this "superior" medicine is an ironic joke at best.

As a licensed practitioner of Chinese medicine I am privileged to witness first hand the effectiveness of the medicine I practice. I often see patients after they have been run through the "scientific evidence based" medical system and they are no better or even worse off. I have treated RN's and MD's with conditions that Western medicine had little or nothing of value to offer who have had dramatic and lasting results with very little financial investment or chemical or surgical invasion of their bodies. To dismiss Acupuncture or Chinese medicine because it does not lend itself well to double blind placebo controlled experiments is like dismissing the whole scientific body of astronomy because such experiments are impossible there as well. As a clinician I am far less concerned with "how and why" and far more interested in THAT that I achieve results. Research scientists are always in position of some degree of disconnect with clinical reality.

Are there charlatans attempting to ride the CAM wave? Yes. Should we speak up against what does not achieve results? Yes. Is Western medicine bad. Clearly not. But to suggest that all CAM is flawed and worthless because some CAM is flawed and of little real clinical use is about the same as suggesting that because there is a clear profit motive and corruption in the drug and medical industries that all Western medicine is flawed.

I want to thank Deepak Chopra, MD Andrew Weil, MD and Rustum Roy, PhD for this article. I choose a career as an Integrative Health Care Provider, trained in conventional and "alternative" methods, in order to help bridge this gap of misunderstanding that exists in healthcare today.

Instead of focusing on wellness promotion, our healthcare system is one based on disease control. In order to remedy this, we don't need to necessarily attack the tools used in this paradigm (ie. drugs, herbs, therapies) but rather in the conventionally held beliefs of health itself.

In order to help the most people on this planet, healthcare has to re-focus on the patient, not on big industry. Also, for practitioners, it can not be an us vs. them philosophy. We must unite for the good of the patient. One patient at a time, if the focus and intention is on wellness, we will be able to heal the system.

I am glad that this article was written. The public must see the whole truth in order to make empowered decisions based on true science which is an ART of answering questions. If we can't explain why something works, it doesn't negate the pure fact that it does.

We have two options to implement for natural healing modalities: 1.keep asking more questions in order to figure out why they work, and the use the therapy 2. just accept it works, though we don't know why and use it to save lives.