By Andrea Hargraves 
(Image by Eric Johnson via Pixabay)
In recent months, we have been surprised by some texts written in the newspaper's scientific column globe. The microbiologist attacks the practices now known as integrative health practices in an arrogant and superficial manner. The writer uses persuasive language, which is characteristic of influential people, not scholars. We are very disappointed when we see a newspaper that champions democracy and progressive issues give voice to someone so reactionary, disrespectful, and most dangerously, without counterarguments.
A science column should inform readers through articles written by experts on the topic covered, and of course democratically accept answers and arguments. By capitalizing on the importance it has received during the pandemic around the vaccination campaign, it is using the strategy of confusing people's minds, comparing integrative practices to denial and damaging science.
Although there are still many knowledge gaps to be filled, the benefits of these therapeutic techniques are so clear that the World Health Organization recognized them in the 1970s as effective. This recognition came from epidemiological evidence and improvements in public health indicators, in specific populations, in data supported by classical science. On the other hand, how many times have we seen this same science take a 90-degree turn, contradicting what was previously presented as approved knowledge? Anyone who calls himself a scientist, and deserves such a qualification, must know that knowledge is perhaps infinite; And that facts are never absolute; The subject of study varies depending on the nature of the observer. that great discoveries are usually born from breaking paradigms; Definitive conclusions in health require an enormous amount of supporting data, over a long period of time, as well as a much broader level of consensus than demonstrated by aversion to complementary therapies.
Another profound distortion, resulting from the author's strategy, when she puts everything she doesn't like in the same bag, is that the world of the technologies she criticizes is very heterogeneous. It combines ancient therapeutic methods with recently developed techniques, knowledge with more and less scientific evidence, and rationality with greater or less objectivity, and in short it will be what we call in popular parlance a “cat bag.” In other words, he uses the strategy of mixing everything up, and settling it at the bottom, as if juggling, How it works What characterizes bad science: contaminating the sample to distort the results.
And the science defended by the texts published in the newspaper column globe It is based on a Cartesian scientific model, where everything must be measured to be a science, and is accompanied by a disregard for emotional issues, in light of the attacks to which psychoanalysis is subjected by the same column. This paradigm was broken in the nineteenth century, with the discoveries of physics and the understanding that it was not sufficient to define the world and such complex issues related to health. We imagine Physicists Einstein, Planck and Pohar and philosopher Edgar Morin read texts written by a microbiologist in a science notebook in the year 2024. What a disappointment. What a setback!
The great achievement in Brazil was the inclusion of integrative practices in the integrated system, through the National Policy on Integrative and Complementary Practices, in 2006, which happened after academics and researchers concluded that such practices: 1) are all low intervention/very low risk ; 2) They all cost much less than the cost of scientific and technological medicine in the third millennium; 3) They are all labor-intensive, where the main therapeutic tool is the therapist himself, 4) They all work in the early stages of the pathogenesis process, which can reduce the number of people who require more expensive and risky medical, interventional and medical care and 5) Promote the principle of SUS integration.
This policy includes Traditional knowledge holders such as quilombola and indigenous people, for example, with their diverse health approaches make up authentic Brazilian medicine. In addition to providing the possibility of choice for people who would otherwise not have access to treatments using these technologies, except in the field of general medicine, as before this inclusion only the upper middle class had this possibility in private care. People can choose, and even stop, if they conclude that treatment is not helpful.
We live in a delicate moment in terms of the circulation of information, and we understand as fake news any distortion made by the author of unfounded and convincing texts. Because we believe in democracy and in the importance of journalism to provide safe information to its readers, in the most accurate language, appropriate for an agenda of this importance, that is why we propose that the Science Column require minimal training in the field of journalism. The domain is such that something is published within a particular topic, as we imagine the letter writer to be He should have been aware of this, according to the database Pubmed, there are 46,300 scientific articles published in indexed journals (those that have met the requirements for inclusion in the journal) Medical index). If I had devoted just five minutes to each of these scientific documents mentioned above, I would have needed 60,000 hours (about 2,000 days, which, excluding hours of sleep, would have consumed approximately 10 years of work). Would that be “nonsense”?
***
Marta Rocha de Castro Graduated in Physical Therapy, specialized in Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture. Master's degree in Social Psychology and Social Ecology – EICOS – UFRJ, with research on Chinese medicine. PhD in Geography from PUC-RIO, with research on scientific and traditional knowledge about medicinal plants. Professor in the field of integrative health practices. Author of two books in the field of Chinese medicine and 12 articles in the field of integrative practices, published in indexed scientific journals.
Alex Botsaris is Doctor, infectious disease specialist, specialist in Chinese medicine, acupuncture and herbal therapy. Author of more than ten books in the field of Chinese medicine, including the classic “Chinese Plant Therapy and Brazilian Herbs” and articles based on these topics. He currently resides in Portugal where he works as a traditional Chinese medicine doctor.