The Chopra Bait and Switch

Both Orac and Mark Crislip have noted that proponents of Woo medicine deliberately blur the distinction between science based medicine and their Woo therapies.  As Orac wrote, this is bait and switch.  For example, Deepak Chopra will claim that advice on diet and exercise (which is based on science) is part of the “alternative” therapies he is promoting. That’s the bait.  The switch is then to talk about Woo such as acupuncture or Qi Gong as though they were also proven therapies in the same way as improved diet and exercise are proven.  As Crislip noted:

This is innocence by association. By branding normal or proven activities as alternative, it lends an aura of reputability to the unsupported nonsense.

A fine example of this bait and switch equivocation technique can be found in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal article (also on Chopra’s Intent blog), by Chopra and friends – presumably in reply to the recent WSJ article by Steve Salerno.  I think it’s worth deconstructing the dishonest way Chopra writes about both Woo and proven therapies in the same article, to imply they’re both proven. 

The Bait

He starts with:

This is a watershed in the evolution of integrative medicine, a holistic approach to health care that uses the best of conventional and alternative therapies such as meditation, yoga, acupuncture and herbal remedies. Many of these therapies are now scientifically documented to be not only medically effective but also cost effective.  [My bold.]

Note that Woo (for example, acupuncture) is included.  Also, that “many” of these therapies have been proven by science.  But which ones?  Chopra doesn’t tell us, but he wants you to think they all have.  But to back this up, he will only talk about diet and lifestyle changes, because he’s still in “bait” mode and these are the only therapies that have been shown to work.  Read how he does this:

A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that these approaches may even change gene expression in hundreds of genes in only a few months. Genes associated with cancer, heart disease, and inflammation were downregulated or "turned off" whereas protective genes were upregulated or "turned on." A study published in The Lancet Oncology reported that these changes increase telomerase, the enzyme that lengthens telomeres, the ends of our chromosomes that control how long we live. Even drugs have not been shown to do this.

Chopra’s first link was to a trial which consisted of the following: 

A 3-month comprehensive lifestyle modification was prescribed (13, 14), comprising a 3-day intensive residential retreat, followed by an outpatient phase where participants were in weekly telephone contact with a study nurse. Lifestyle modifications included a low-fat (10% of calories from fat), wholefoods, plant-based diet, stress management 60 min per day (gentle yoga-based stretching, breathing, meditation, imagery, and progressive relaxation), moderate aerobic exercise (walking 30 min per day for 6 days per week), and a 1-h group support session per week.The diet was supplemented with soy(1dailyservingoftofu plus 58 g of a fortified soy protein powdered beverage), fish oil (3 g daily), vitamin E (100 units daily), selenium (200mgdaily), and vitamin C (2 g daily).

His second link was to a trial which consisted of the following:

Patients are placed on a comprehensive lifestyle change program comprising a low-fat vegan diet, stress management, moderate aerobic exercise, and regular participation in a support group for 3 months.

Note, alternative therapies such as acupuncture were not included in either of these studies – they were mainly about diet and exercise.  But at least there were studies cited.  With links. (If you read the blog, not the WSG.)  Bait set. 

The Switch

Here’s the switch:

Chronic pain is one of the major sources of worker's compensation claims costs, yet studies show that it is often susceptible to acupuncture and Qi Gong. Herbs usually have far fewer side effects than pharmaceuticals.

The Woo (acupuncture and Qi Gong) is introduced.  “Studies” are quoted.  But no studies are linked.  You are meant to think acupuncture and Qi Gong have been shown to work in the studies he wrote about before.  But neither acupuncture nor Qi Gong had anything to do with those studies.  Nor had any of the other drivel Chopra normally pontificates about.  Chopra just reeled you in.

He then wraps everything together with some feel good benefits that you are supposed to think you will receive if you subscribe to Chopra’s therapies:

Joy, pleasure, and freedom are sustainable, deprivation and austerity are not. When you eat a healthier diet, quit smoking, exercise, meditate and have more love in your life, then your brain receives more blood and oxygen, so you think more clearly, have more energy, need less sleep. Your brain may grow so many new neurons that it could get measurably bigger in only a few months. Your face gets more blood flow, so your skin glows more and wrinkles less. Your heart gets more blood flow, so you have more stamina and can even begin to reverse heart disease. Your sexual organs receive more blood flow, so you may become more potent -- similar to the way that circulation-increasing drugs like Viagra work. For many people, these are choices worth making -- not just to live longer, but also to live better.

I don’t know if a healthier diet etc actually means you will grow more neurons, or if Chopra is overreaching.  And I don’t even want to think about Chopra becoming “more potent” as he claims.  But I accept that a healthier diet, no smoking, exercise etc would be good for you.  But this has nothing to do with the acupuncture or the Qi Gong that he also introduced in this article. 

Funnily enough, I agree with the way he ends, although perhaps not in the way he intended:

It's time to move past the debate of alternative medicine versus traditional medicine, and to focus on what works, what doesn't, for whom, and under which circumstances.

Yes I agree, it is time to move beyond alternative medicine verses science based medicine, and to focus on what works.  Because once something has been shown to work, it is no longer alternative.  "Alternative" is just framing for "doesn't work."  The trouble is, Chopra doesn’t want to exclude what doesn’t work.  He wants to include it.  He just won't be honest and say so.

Edit January 12

Orac posted today on this story.  He notes that the two studies Chopra referred to were essentially the same study – the second one being a further analysis of the first.  In addition they were of a highly select group of men and consisted of an extreme low fat diet that would be very hard for many people to maintain.  His whole post is worth reading.

Comments

[TechSkeptic]

He wants to include unproven Woo
Its not even 'unproven' woo. This, to me, implies that there is still some likelyhood that it may work. It has been looked into, it never works better than placebo (unless you unblind the studies and use small populations).

I think we just need to make a better case about what working as well as placebo means it isnt a good treatment.

[Skeptico]

I suppose "unproven woo" is a little redundant.

[Martin]

I accept that a healthier diet, no smoking, exercise etc would be good for you. But this has nothing to do with the acupuncture or the Qi Gong that he also introduced in this article.

Qi Gong is a subset of exercise, no?

[Skeptico]

Yes and no.  Qigong:

…refers to a wide variety of traditional cultivation practices that involve methods of accumulating, circulating, and working with qi or energy within the body.

The studies Chopra linked didn’t talk about working with “qi”.

[Martin]

From Chopra's link:

[...] stress management 60 min per day (gentle yoga-based stretching, breathing, meditation, imagery, and progressive relaxation)

From Wikipedia's qi-gong article:

[They] view qigong as a set of breathing and movement exercises, with possible benefits to health through stress reduction and exercise.

Chopra's link may not mention qi gong with words, but if you drop the labels, his link from which I quote above is pretty much what a typical qi gong session would look like.

[Skeptico]

Martin:

You are falling or the exact same bait and switch equivocation trick that I wrote about in my post.  Yes, Qi Gong can be described as just breathing and movement exercises, but that is not the Woo definition that Chopra wants to promote once he has you on the hook.  You have just been reeled in.

The studies did not mention Qi Gong, and even if they did, it would not be possible to say that Qi Gong works because of the confounding factors – low fat diet, aerobic exercise etc.

Read Equivocation. It's just more of the same.

[Infophile]

So because Qi-gong is supposedly a type of exercise, all benefits of exercise apparently apply to Qi-gong as well? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, even for proven benefits of exercise. You can't build your arm muscles by running, or build cardiovascular endurance by lifting weights, though both of those are benefits of exercise when it's generalized.

Hypothetical comparison: Let's say I invent an activity called "R-movement," which consists of moving your arms around randomly while standing in one place. Since it involves moving your body, I say it's a type of exercise. Exercise is good for you, so R-movement must also be good for you, right? We must start promoting it immediately!

You see what I'm doing there? That's all the justification we're given for Qi gong in this case, and it sounds idiotic when you apply it to a made-up practice. The argument is simply invalid.

[The Perky Skeptic]

It's hard not to view Chopra's equivocating as anything other than pure dishonesty. Not well-meaning, but deliberately misleading. The man's words are those of a huckster, pure and simple.

[TechSkeptic]

Chopra's equivocating as anything other than pure dishonesty

You know, I am truly tempted to think that too. At the same time, I have seen so many times that people honestly believe what they are talking about. Dawkins interviewed water dowsers, they honestly believed they could find water with a stick, even in the face of evidence that they can not

I have no idea if there is evidence the Chopra is knowingly misleading. He may truly, honestly believe this stuff he spouts. He may in fact be as much a victim of his own equivocation as the people who listen to him.

This doesnt make him criminal, it just makes him a person that should not be listened to. And article like this one from Skeptico will provide some reference point as to why.

Then again, someone may be able to link to a place where he knowingly is misleading people, but this WSJ entry is not it.

[pointybirds]

"Herbs usually have far fewer side effects than pharmaceuticals."

Probably because pharmaceuticals actually do something in the first place. Water also doesn't have too many side effects (including the homeopathic variety, apart from wallet thinning) but it won't independently cure many diseases, either.

[Mark]

Thanks for posting these types of articles, i get sucked into these words and start nodding - "yes it seems reasonable" until it is carefully analyzed and you realize just how it works.

[Realist]

The man, Chopra, is an out and out charlatan, mind you a very smart one but, a charlatan nevertheless. If critical thinking were a prominent subject in our education system this woo master could not have amassed his millions. He is a disgrace to the human specie and so are many of us.

Why stay ignorant when you have a choice not to be?

[Citizen Deux]

Chopra remains the king of the lifestyle con men. While pushing genuinely beneficial modifications (stress reduction, diet, exercise), he also advocates a variety of "non effective" approaches. He also will not subject himself to any legitimate criticism, which he would have had to as an MD. Now that he is officially an "amateur" he can say whatever he likes with no fear of sanction or serious challenge. Anti-Chopra posts on Huffpo are summarily removed and any rational discussion of his vague generalities remains untested.

[Realist]

The Chopras are saying they will close down their original Intentblog.com within days.
Here part of one of the “good bye” pots:

It was fun and we had some good exchanges, but there was a pattern at IB. Posts that called for giving reason and reality a chance to find the truth and not assigning the unexplainable to the supernatural were often not allowed or even deleted. These “reality posts” seemed a threat to the owners.

But faith, which is nothing but blind belief, is at the heart of many conflicts today and indeed throughout history, and if we don’t learn to reason things out our children and grandchildren will inherit a very dangerous world, if a world at all?

“…let’s help the world find a religion that worships the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science. It might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths”. CS

[yakaru]

On Dawkins' Enemies of Reason film, there's an interview with Chopra where he complains that physicists have "hijacked the term quantum physics".

Maybe it's also worth linking to this older post by http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/10/deepak_chopra_does_it_again.php>PZ Myers on Chopra. It's interesting to see typical Chopra-esque woo-talk being brought into contact with actual science.

There are some interesting articles on http://www.rickross.com/groups/deepakchopra.html>Rick Ross about Chopra's private life. There are plenty of far worse people than him in the New Age movement, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bandler#Corine_Christensen_Case>of course, but when one can't practice what one preaches, then maybe what one preaches is a load of hogwash.

[e]

One of these days you will experience something that is only explainable or "fixable" by these subjects in which you claim not to believe.

"He doth protest too much..."

[Bronze Dog]

Talk about cynical and pessimistic, e. Doggerel #127: "Unexplainable"

What makes it funny is that I have yet to see any of those subjects explain anything effectively. The wonder of science has done a much, much better job at that sort of thing while all you can do is try to tear everything down.

[Jimmy_Blue]

You seem a little confused e. Not a surprise really, since understanding reality seems a stretch for people like you.

We don't claim that we don't believe in these subjects.

We claim (and can show with evidence) that these subjects belong to the realms of pseudoscience, pseudohistory and pseudomedicine and that they don't have the effects that are claimed for them, or don't do the things people claim they do. We don't believe in many of the claimed properties of these subjects.

Try and understand the difference before coming back.

We acknowledge that the subjects exist, it's just that almost everything else about them is bullshit.

Since you don't even seem to understand the skeptical position, there's not much point in talking to you any further. Come back when you have at least tried to understand our position, and can effectively demonstrate this.

[Tom Foss]

One of these days you will experience something that is only explainable or "fixable" by careful application of the Force using Jedi principles.

"I sense much fear in you..."

[The Perky Skeptic]

I link 2 U in a comment on the Movin' Meat blog! :) Which I cannot link, for some reason. Me go lie down now.