Complementary and alternative medicine Homeopathy Naturopathy Quackery

The American Medical Student Association and its promotion of woo in medical school

There’s a saying in medicine that we frequently hear when a newer, more effective therapy supplants an older therapy or an existing therapy is shown not to be as efficacious as was once thought, and it has to do about how long it takes for the use of that therapy to decline. The saying basically says that the therapy won’t die out until the current generation of established physicians retire and are replaced by the new generation coming up through medical schools. From my perspective, it’s a bit of an exaggeration, because in the mere 13 years that I’ve been a real doctor (i.e., an attending physician) our practices in breast cancer surgery has changed markedly. Although certain core principles of breast cancer care remain the same, there have been major changes in terms of how we deal with the axillary lymph nodes, our use of hormone therapy and chemotherapy, and our very understanding of the different subtypes of breast cancer. Of course, I have spent my entire career as faculty at two different NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers; so my experience is not representative of that of most physicians, particularly given that I’m super subspecialized. It’s generally expected that if you’re faculty in an academic medical center you will be at the very least up to date, if not beyond at the cutting edge.

Even so, there is some truth to the observation that it takes the rise of a new generation of physicians to force out certain old ideas, which means that how we train our medical students is of utmost importance. Unfortunately, these days, it is medical students who have become a major force for promoting the “integration” of quackery into medicine (which these days is known as, appropriately enough in a way unintended by its proponents, “integrative medicine”). No, I’m not saying that all or even most medical students are prone to the blandishments of quackademic medicine, but rather that there is a large enough contingent of medical students who have gone beyond being shruggies to become activists for unscientific medicine. There are CAM clubs, CAM interest groups, and student-driven CAM electives.

And then there’s the American Medical Students Association (AMSA), specifically its various initiatives in “integrative medicine.” I fear that each successive generation of medical students is more prone to embracing unscientific medicine than the last.

AMSA and CAM: A long history together

On its website, AMSA describes itself as the oldest and largest independent association of physicians-in-training in the United States. Founded in 1950, it currently boasts a membership of approximately 68,000 medical students, premedical students, interns, and residents. The goals of the organization, as described on its website, are as follows:

It’s hard to argue with any of these aims as goals, but, of course, as always the devil is in the details. For instance, AMSA has managed to cause some controversy with its PharmFree initiative, which is fine on the surface, but, as some argue, might have unintended consequences. Another problem is that AMSA declares itself to be all about the evidence and evidence-based medicine, as well as ethics. This would be great if it were true, but there’s one big hole in the claim. It’s a hole big enough to pilot an aircraft carrier through, and that hole is, to put it briefly, “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM). To boil it down, AMSA promotes integrating quackery into medicine, and it does it in a big way. Let’s see how.

I first became aware of how AMSA promotes “integrative medicine” several years ago, when Dr. R. W. Donnell pointed it out to me. This led me to a document, still available on the AMSA website on a page called the ICAM Resource Center (Integrative, Complementary and Alternative Medicine), Complementary Therapies Primer (formerly “The Quick and Dirty Guide to Complementary Therapies”) and the 2006 UCSF Guide to Integrative Medicine. I’ll get to the primer in a minute. First, let’s look at AMSA’s position on CAM laid out on its ICAM webpage:

AMSA believes that students and physicians can best serve their patients by recognizing and acknowledging the availability of integrative medicine in their communities. By pursuing education in complementary and alternative medical (CAM) treatments, medical students and physicians can better facilitate the appropriate education, treatment and counseling of patients and consumers.

  • AMSA believes that an empowered patient can serve as a powerful and central actor in their own healing.
  • Appropriate education in CAM treatments uses scientific and ethnographic methods, including quantitative and qualitative outcomes research of efficacy and effectiveness. Although it is informed by evidence, it considers explanatory models and cultural.
  • AMSA supports students who wish to work within the healthcare system to create an environment which is supportive of the whole patient.
  • AMSA believes that medical students and other health care professionals need to be restored and whole in order to be empowering and healing for their patients.

Let’s look at numbers one, three, and four first. These are nothing more than CAM-speak blather worthy of one of my good bud Kimball Atwood’s installment of Weekly Waluation of the Weasel Words of Woo. For instance, there is nothing in SBM that says an “empowered patient” is a bad thing or that he can’t serve as a “powerful and central actor” in his own healing. Indeed, as I’ve pointed out before many times, paternalism is steadily going away within EBM/SBM, and most physicians of my generation and younger agree that’s a good thing for the most part. We want our patients to be engaged and provide input into their care and what’s important to them. Most of us don’t feel comfortable anymore taking a “doctor knows best” attitude in which we simply give orders and prescriptions and expect to be obeyed. This brings us to number three, which is what I like to call the “holistic” trope, in which CAM practitioners claim to be so much better than conventional medicine at caring for the “whole patient.” It’s utter bunkum, nonsense, a fetid pair of dingo’s kidneys. A good science-based primary care doctor is a holistic doctor! A good science-based primary care doctor does take care of the “whole patient.” A good science-based primary care doctor also “empowers” the patient. None of these things are inherent in or exclusive to CAM, nor are they unachievable in SBM. It’s a false dichotomy that AMSA fully buys into, lumping its CAM promotion initiatives under “humanistic medicine.” Again, I resent that — I don’t need CAM to practice “humanistic medicine.”

More importantly, let’s look at number two, how AMSA supports using both “scientific and ethnographic methods” and claims that appropriate education in CAM uses explanatory models and culture. While this is not completely unreasonable on the surface (certainly to understand how traditional Chinese medicine came about one has to understand a bit about the Chinese culture out of which TCM sprang), but notice the not-so-subtle denigration of science. Notice how AMSA considers qualitative and quantitative outcomes research and doesn’t even mention proper randomized clinical trials (RCTs), unless one assumes it to be subsumed under “scientific” methods. Odd that it’s not mentioned, though, isn’t it? Well, no, it’s not so odd. As we’ve discussed many times, CAM proponents are very much enamored of “pragmatic” research, of the sort that seeks to see how various modalities perform in “real world” settings. The problem with this emphasis is that pragmatic studies and outcomes research are not appropriate for modalities that have not yet been shown to be efficacious and safe in proper clinical trials. The reason for “pragmatic” research is to test whether treatments shown to work in RCTs do as well once they are let “out in the wild,” so to speak, where they will be used to treat patients who might not have fit the inclusion criteria of the RCTs used to test the treatment or in hospitals and settings where the capabilities for monitoring the therapy might not be as good as they were for the RCTs. Doing outcome studies on therapies that haven’t been validated in RCTs is putting the proverbial cart before the horse.

Informational resources that AMSA recommends: Quackery

Now, let’s go back and briefly revisit the UCSF guide. There’s not a lot of need for me to rehash, mainly because I wrote a detailed discussion of this particular woo-ful guide five years ago, which was when I first became aware of it. Of note, UCSF recently built a new $37 million center for integrative medicine. Unfortunately, AMSA is listing a scientifically nonsensical sectarian tract containing what is clearly misinformation as a reliable source of information.

Then there’sAMSA’s very own manual. If there was one “good” thing about the UCSF manual, it was that it was a bit—shall we say?—reticent about promoting the quackier therapies. Unfortunately, the AMSA manual has no such compunction. For instance, on p.20, this is what AMSA says about chelation therapy:

Chelation is used to reverse the process of atherosclerosis by removing calcium from plaques. It is used to prevent myocardial infarction and stroke, and as an alternative to bypass surgery and angioplasty. Since it improves blood flow, it is also helpful in gangrene, intermittent claudication caused by peripheral vascular disease, and poor memory due in part to insufficient cerebral blood flow. Reduction in metal ions reduces inflammation caused by free radicals, and makes chelation therapy helpful in arthritis, scleroderma, and lupus. Chelation therapy has also been used to normalize cardiac arrhythmias, improve vasculogenic vision loss, reduce cancer mortality, protect against iron poisoning and detoxification of snake and spider bites.

Chelation therapy involves between twenty and thirty treatments given at intervals of two to seven days. Each treatment takes approximately three and a half hours, and involves the intravenous infusion of EDTA, vitamins and minerals. Oral chelation is also effective for patients with mild disease, or as a preventive measure. EDTA and penicillamine (another chelating agent used in heavy metal poisoning, Wilson’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis) can be used orally, leading to reduced serum cholesterol.

The only warning given about chelation therapy provided is to point out that chelation therapy is “contraindicated in pregnancy, renal failure (the drug is cleared by the kidneys), and hypoparathyroidism (due to its calcium-binding properties).” There’s no mention that it doesn’t work, that it doesn’t clear plaques from coronary arteries, or that it doesn’t do anything for autism.

Then there’s this description of homeopathy:

The Law of the Infinitesimal Dose was formulated by Dr. Hahnemann when he experimented with dilute solutions, seeking to avoid toxicities, and found them to be more effective than full strength preparations. Homeopathic remedies are repeatedly mixed with water or alcohol and shaken (succussion), often diluting the substances to such a degree that no amount of the original medication can be found in the remedy. Some believe that the remedies retain their effect because of electromagnetic frequency imprinting, changing the structure of the diluent subtly.

Initially, as a patient is treated by a homeopathic physician, he or she may actually worsen. This is know as a “healing crisis.” As the presenting, most recent, symptoms are treated, older, underlying disorders come to the surface. Dr. Constantine Hering, the father of American homeopathy, believed that healing progresses from recent diseases to chronic maladies, from emotional imbalances to physical disorders, from superior to inferior, and from the deep structures to the superficial. This is known as Hering’s Laws of Cure. By following Hering’s Laws when treating a patient, a practitioner can successively unravel many layers of pathology, eventually recreating internal order and achieving a more permanent cure.

The skeptical take included in this guide? It’s mentioned that homeopathy has “lost favor with the medical establishment in the US” (gee, that couldn’t possibly be because homeopathy is a load of pseudoscientific rubbish with a mystical vitalistic overlay, could it?), after which a 1991 BMJ study finding that most controlled clinical trials suggested a beneficial effect of homeopathic remedies is cited. Unfortunately, there are also similarly credulous takes on a wide variety of dubious, non-science-based therapies, including aromatherapy, acupuncture, chiropractic, naturopathy, and others. I can see AMSA apologists retorting that this particular guide was written in 1995, making it 17 years old and potentially out of date. If that were the case, however, why would AMSA not remove it from its website as one of its suggested resources? Ditto the UCSF guide. Alternatively, AMSA could add a note to its 1995 guide pointing out that chelation therapy is dangerous and doesn’t work or remove that section altogether. It hasn’t. At worst, this failure implies endorsement of this particular form of quackery; at best, it implies indifference to whether chelation therapy is science- and evidence-based or not. The same could be said for all the other quackery credulously discussed in these two tomes of pseudoscience, and in a more recent document put together by EDCAM, namely AMSA’s handy-dandy pocket handbook entitled Integrative, Complementary, and Alternative Medicine for Providers of Primary Care, which credulously makes a brief tour of naturopathy, homeopathy (which is touted as being used to treat a wide number of disorders and complaints), Native American healing, Tibetan medicine, and, of course, traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurveda.

If the above doesn’t convince you, just peruse AMSA’s webpage for its Naturopathic Medicine Interest Group, which not only represents naturopathy as scientific and touts a list of naturopaths on AMSA’s ND Advisory Board whom interested students can contact to learn about naturopathy clinical experiences, but actively encourages interactions and “cross pollination” between medical students and naturopathy students, complete with a link to a list of alternative medicine conferences.

Promotion of CAM and a bootcamp for quackery

Unfortunately, AMSA goes far beyond simply providing unscientific and pseudoscientific information on its website and falling for typical distortions of language used by CAM apologists. In other words, it goes beyond words into deeds. For instance, if you peruse AMSA’s website, it won’t take you long to find several initiatives related to CAM. One example is AMSA’s Educational Development for Complementary & Alternative Medicine (EDCAM), whose goals are described as:

  1. Improve medical student proficiency in CAM theory, methods, and practice;
  2. Enhance medical student education of preventive health, holistic care, and self-care through clinical examples using integrative medicine; and
  3. Improve cultural competence and comfort of future physicians increasingly exposed to a diversity of world populations and healing methods.

To manage that, EDCAM has created modules whose use it encourages medical schools to use in their curriculum that it refers to as Core Curriculum CAM Integration in 10 categories. These include:

  1. Nutrition and Lifestyle: Diet, Exercise, Sleep and Stress Management
  2. Mind-Body Medicines 
  3. Alternative Systems of Medical Thought: Traditional Chinese Medicine, Kampo, Tibetan Medicine and Acupuncture 
  4. Alternative Systems of Medical Thought: Yoga, Ayurveda, Native American and Yoruba Based Medicines 
  5. Alternative Systems of Medical Thought: Homeopathy and Flower Essences (updated 5/03)
  6. Bioenergetic Medicines 
  7. Pharmacologic/Biologically Based: Herbal Medicines 
  8. Pharmacologic/Biologically Based: Nutrition, Dietary Supplements and Vitamins 
  9. Manipulative Therapies: Chiropractic and Osteopathy 
  10. Manipulative Therapies: Therapeutic Massage

Let’s take a look at one of these, the section on bioenergetic medicines. This is a subcategory of CAM commonly referred to as “energy healing” and includes therapeutic touch, reiki, and several others. The objectives described include being able to:

  • understand the concept of subtle energy, the vital force, qi, and prana and their roles in medicine, now and historically.
  • define the terms bioelectromagnetic medicine, biofield therapies, biofield, frequency, electromagnetic field, magnet therapy, medical qigong, Reiki, therapeutic touch, and external qi.
  • explain how energy medicine works according to our present scientific understanding and discuss what scientific questions and controversies still remain, discussing the scientific loopholes in studying bioenergetic fields.
  • understand what skeptics say about energy medicine, and what scientific arguments are used to refute those claims.
  • explain the present and most promising future applications of bioelectromagnetic therapies, citing some key studies showing effectiveness of bioelectromagnetic therapies.
  • list the main types of biofield therapies used in the U.S. and know what they are clinically used for.
  • discuss several key studies examining effectiveness of biofield therapies.
  • experience some form of biofield or bioelectromagnetic energy practice.

AMSA states that “bioenergetic medicine” (BEM) can be used to treat bone fractures, soft tissue injuries, chronic venous insufficiency, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s disease, and others. Interestingly, the most recent references cited to support these claims date back to the 1990s. Instead of stating that there is no evidence that the “life energy,” “vital force,” or qi exists, this is what the BEM section states:

The biofield refers to the complex, dynamic, extremely weak EM field within and around the human body that has been proposed as a super-regulator of health and healing (Rubik, 2002). Besides the EM components of the biofield emitted by the brain (EEG) and heart (ECG) that are well known in conventional medicine, the human biofield may also consist of more subtle energy fields as elaborated in Oriental Medicine, Ayurvedic Medicine, and other indigenous systems of medicine.

This subtle energy, vital force, or cosmic life energy is a key concept in many CAM modalities, and it is referred to by the many terms listed above from various medical systems (Rubik et al., 1994a). Such vitalistic principles underlie many CAM modalities besides energy medicine, but have been banished from conventional medicine. This fundamental philosophical difference is at the root of medicine’s divided legacy (Coulter, 1994).

Amusingly, the BEM module does cite Emily Rosa’s famous study of therapeutic touch that demonstrates that it doesn’t work and tries to refute it:

Several methodology issues were questioned in this study: 1) consistency of the distance between the experimenter’s and subjects’ hands, 2) lack of reference or use of methodology used by TT experts in 28 prior quantitative studies, 3) lack of accounting for conditions during which HEF cannot be detected by those denying desire for interaction with proper intention. Researchers have concluded in other studies that college students can sense another’s intention to interact with them (Schwartz 1995, 1998).

One notes that the two studies cited that claim that college students can detect another’s intention to interact with them appeared in a journals called Subtle Energies and the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Interestingly enough the Subtle Energies website triggered a malware warning on Safari when I tried to access it; so I didn’t. Maybe its energies are more powerful than expected! Be that as it may, neither journal is what I would describe as reputable, and neither study is a good study. (Maybe I could go into detail on another occasion.) None of the other modules are any better, either. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the homeopathy module, where one of the objectives is to “discuss the scientific controversies and questions that remain for homeopathy and explain basic evidence for and against its clinical application.” There are no “scientific controversies” about homeopathy. It is water; it is a placebo. How many times does this need to be pointed out?

Unfortunately, this is the sort of stuff that AMSA wants to place in medical school curricula, and, to a large extent, it’s succeeding.

In case that isn’t enough, though, AMSA goes far beyond informational resources, helpfully providing its AMSA Medical School CAM Directory, which allows a fast and easy search of CAM programs at various medical schools for medical students looking for CAM electives and sponsors an International Integrative Medicine Day. If that’s still not enough, AMSA offers what is in essence a boot camp for students who want to become leaders in integrative medicine, which it calls Leadership and Education Program for Students in Integrative Medicine (LEAPS into IM). LEAPS into IM is designed to groom future thought leaders in CAM and integrative medicine by choosing 30 students to take part in a week long retreat at the Kripalu Center for Yoga & Health in Berkshire Mountains of Massachusetts. If that’s not enough, there’s also a month long retreat offered known as the Humanistic Elective in Alternative Medicine, Activism and Reflective Transformation (HEART):

Specific sessions will be focused on intentional community building, complementary and alternative/holistic and integrative medicine, social justice and activism, reflective transformation including meditative practices, and personal growth skills such as communication and intention. Any clinical site visits will demonstrate ways to incorporate social justice and patient advocacy into clinical care.

There’s nothing like tying the idealistic impulses of young people to indoctrination in pseudoscience and quackery, is there?

Finally, for students who can’t travel to Massachusetts next June or give up a month of their lives for HEART, there is an online CAM course AMSA calls the Integrative Medicine Scholars Program that allows students interested in integrative medicine to learn and interact online.


As admirable as many of AMSA’s initiatives might be, it is very clear that, when it comes to the promotion of nonscientific medicine, AMSA is far more part of the problem than the solution. I wish it were otherwise, but it is not. That being said, I realize that the “humed” (humanistic medicine) contingent of AMSA is the minority, and my conversations with numerous medical students leads me to believe that many of them quite correctly take a dim view of AMSA’s promotion of woo in the medical school curriculum. Unfortunately, the majority of them are also shruggies, much like most of physicians they will “grow up” to join and ultimately replace, which probably explains why they don’t band together to do something about AMSA’s blatant promotion of pure quackery. How to get medical students more interested in science-based medicine and willing to confront the infiltration of pseudoscience into their main professional organization is the most pressing issue supporters of SBM have in medical education. One wonders what would happen if an SBM-minded group of students tried to form an SBM interest group within AMSA. We can only encourage, offer help to interested students, and hope.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

30 replies on “The American Medical Student Association and its promotion of woo in medical school”

What influence does AMSA actually have on medical schools?

I was a member back in the day and it was sort of a joke then (more of one now, due to the woo worship). But what schools have adopted their proposals?

Empower is an over-used word. Who could be against “empowering” (fill in blank)? But it has too frequently become code for meaningless gestures.

Given that my ultimate goal is to work in medical research, I wonder how much I will be working alongside medical students as I work on my dissertations and post-doc.
I don’t know how much leeway I would be given, to be honest. It’s also hard to know how to argue against this sort of thing. “That’s a total load of bollocks.” Sounds a bit harsh.

(not so offtopic)

Orac; Yesterday, while making some hops tea and perusing pubmed for the dose-response curve for keeping the good bugs in the intestinal track and ridding the bad bugs (perhaps I should ask Mark Crislip), I came across a few publications describing some anti-cancer property and looking right now, there is 25 publications for humulus and cancer:

Are you aware of this line of research and can you expand a bit on that?



“Dr. Constantine Hering, the father of American homeopathy, believed …”

There you have it, the magic word. Dr. Hering “believed.” The ancient Chinese “believe.” Indigenous systems of medicine “believe.”

You’re not supposed to argue with people’s beliefs: they have a right to them.

So what happens when the pharmaceutical companies start trying to introduce their failed products to the public with “We believe…?”

Why make hops tea when there are some very good humulus lupus infusions available commercially, in the form of ‘beer’?

I wonder if the popularity of research into cancer and hops may have something to do with its close relative (not trying to be obscure, just to avoid the c*nna*is troll being alerted by Google).

Scientist doesn’t always equal critical thinker. I was barbecuing at a Giant’s party last night and was speaking with a clinical psychologist about CAM/IM in medicine. We were in total agreement about things like homeopathy and reiki when some loon interjected something about chemtrails in the conversation and to my surprise, she totally agreed with him. I thought she was joking so I played along with some comment about reptilians. She was clearly not amused, so I tacked with the changing wind. Now, I have, of late, been trying to not jump down people’s throats when ridiculous beliefs arise, so I took a page from my friend Dixon’s notebook and started asking questions: Who is doing this? (A vague “them” comprised of the usual suspects) Why are they doing this? (Pacification/weather control) How do they do it? (Chemicals in fuel) Have you ever seen it being done? (Yes!) How is the secret kept? (Vague mumbling about money and threats) When questioned further on each point (how do they keep the chemical from burning up in 1200º combustion? for example), she got so slippery in her morphing, goalpost-shifting answers that there was clearly no point in continuing. I just gave up on the conversation with a resigned “well, we’ll just agree to disagree” and kept on grilling. We all celebrated the Giant’s prowess but I didn’t have the heart to tell her Lord Draconis was drugging the Tigers the whole time.

I wonder if the popularity of research into cancer and hops may have something to do with its close relative

That was the first thing that occurred to me. I seem to recall some attempts in the ’70s cultivation literature to graft hops onto the rootstalk of its relative in the belief that this would somehow produce a stealth version of the target item, which seems fanciful even for that crowd.

Why make hops tea when there are some very good humulus lupus infusions available commercially, in the form of ‘beer’?

I drank way too many beers lately (thursday and this week-end) so I decided to calm down a little bit and beside, the most hopped beer available to me is the double IPA of the Siboire microbrewery with something about 100 or 105 IBU but it’s not cheap.

On the other hand, I have about 200g of hops in the fridge so I could make a monster of about 150 IBU with just a 50g pack of Northern brewer given the small size of my fermenter (2 Imperial gallons).


p.s. made a road trip to Montreal this week-end and ended at a drinkfest at my cousin’s place so that’s why I took too many beer.

Why make hops tea

I often make tea out of hops, boiling it in a solution of water, grain extract, and malt, then letting it cool for a reasonable period with yeast mixed in.

ummph…….I feel like the target of a bad joke; oh well, how about I post an open thread about hops tea recipes at casa securivm?


That was the first thing that occurred to me. I seem to recall some attempts in the ’70s cultivation literature to graft hops onto the rootstalk of its relative in the belief that this would somehow produce a stealth version of the target item, which seems fanciful even for that crowd.

I recall a case in one of the Medical Detectives books of a family who were poisoned because they grafted tomatoes onto jimson weed and didn’t realize that the tomatoes thus produced would share poisonous properties of the jimson.

I have only a vague idea of agricultural grafting, so I don’t understand if there’s a good reason why tomatoes grafted on jimson would receive properties of the jimson but hops grafted on … other stuff … would be unlikely to get properties of the other stuff. Can someone explain?

The objectives described include being able to:

Explain how energy medicine works according to our present scientific understanding

I guess none of the students will graduate then, assuming this is a prerequisite.

I have only a vague idea of agricultural grafting, so I don’t understand if there’s a good reason why tomatoes grafted on jimson would receive properties of the jimson

Alkaloid synthesis seems to go on in the root in these nightshades (not the best link, but here).

so I don’t understand if there’s a good reason why tomatoes grafted on jimson would receive properties of the jimson but hops grafted on … other stuff … would be unlikely to get properties of the other stuff.

The book sez that for a plant that is not hops, the substance is secreted in epidermal glands on the leaves (especially on the bracts of the flower heads) — so if you graft a hop plant to a rootstock of that other plant, then nothing will happen.
Conversely, the interesting acetylcholine-blocking alkaloids from our Solanaceae friends are secreted in all parts of the plant — including the rootstock (hence the interest in mandrake roots).

(hence the interest in mandrake roots)

Don’t forget immortalization in prose: “they said I was trying to talk, but I sounded like a raccoon.”


My French is just good enough to be able to translate your recipe. I have to say that I think I’d rather just wander down to the corner and buy a six-pack.

(Although the idea of driving the spousal unit — a staunch teetotal Methodist — to despair by setting up brew operations in the basement is tempting).

@ Shay,

Buying a 6 pack might be cheaper just by a slight little bit if we don’t count the time (from 8:30am to 2:30pm) and equiment (all made of stainless and not cheap) but this is a potential award winning beer.


Kelsey – it is acceptable for postdocs to tell people they are talking total bollocks. Getting to the point where the head of institute quotes you to the whole faculty may be taking it a bit far 😉

Boot: Is that supposed to be a deterrent? Because that sounds like a win to me. 😉

I’m a Canadian nursing student…
I hope you are examining the approaches to health that your fellow professionals base their practice on. Because AMSA’s position on CAM is well supported in nursing theory. Our approach to health IS holistic, as we believe it should be. Primary health care models are expanding and there’s more and more evidence it will improve health care. Are you really so up to date? 🙂

So, Don, are you seriously saying that homeopathy and therapeutic touch are supported in nursing theory? Really? Provide some citations.

Kelsey – it has it’s ups and downs. Arguing the toss with the HOI in public, when he’s trying to expand is domain with dodgy epidemiology, isn’t calculated to prolong the academic part of your career. On the up side i seem to sleep better than most

So, Don, are you seriously saying that homeopathy and therapeutic touch are supported in nursing theory?

Actually, therapeutic touch originated directly from Rogersian Nursing Theory, which (if I’m understanding this correctly) views human beings as “energy” and therefore open to manipulation of these “energy fields”. Unfortunately, this nonsense is part of the core curriculum in many nursing schools.

And therapeutic touch was disproved by a ten year old kid.

Though surely no nursing school pushes chelation (except for real heavy metal poisoning) and homeopathy? I suspect that Don did not really read the article.

Comments are closed.


Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading