Hardly a day goes by without a headline about a new medical solution. We are predisposed to believe the claims are valid due to our belief that there is some sort of editorial board that ensures accuracy. Unfortunately, there isn’t any supervision. And our desire for quick fixes and simple solutions makes us even more vulnerable to accept unlikely or oversimplified claims. We can mistake marketing for science, or good explanations for proof of effectiveness. In other words, we can mistake pseudoscience for science.

Defining Science and Pseudoscience

For the non-science majors, science is “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment,” according to the Oxford dictionary. The practice assumes careful study and statistically significant results prior to making a claim.

Pseudoscience, on the other hand, is defined by the same dictionary as “a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.” In the context of this blog, it refers to treatment assertions that sound scientifically based, but are over-simplified or state conclusions about effectiveness or usefulness without any scientific validity. Some of these assertions are bold, but incorrect. Some involve a degree of wishful thinking. Often they involve a conflation of what the technology is intended to achieve and what it is actually proven to do by careful scientific study.

Particularly in workers’ compensation and rehabilitation, we are constantly presented with the latest solution for pain, or memory, or addiction, or paralysis. We hear of such devices as transcranial magnets or electrical stimulation curing everything from pain to depression to brain injury. We hear about the potential for genomics or genetic testing. We hear about addiction cures and FDA approval of new medications. They all sound very “sciencey” and are heavily marketed. Claims are even echoed by the media as news stories.

Some of the explanations of why they may or should work have a scientific basis, yet the true science may only reveal a marginal clinical or functional benefit in very carefully selected patients. Asserting that these technologies should immediately be approved and used on a large scale without this proof is mere pseudoscience.

Learning from the Past: Pseudoscience in Action

For many years the German company Bayer promoted heroin as being a non-addictive substitute for morphine. More recently, the makers of the popular opioid OxyContin had some advocates who falsely claimed the medication was not addictive when used to treat chronic pain. There are many examples of pseudoscience being used to exaggerate the science of a medication with devastating effects.

Visit us next week when we feature a case study of one of the latest prescription opioids to be hyped as an addiction and chronic pain wonder drug. We must be vigilant and skeptical of all newer technologies so that our wish for a simple quick fix does not become a general policy with unintended consequences.

Stay informed about the latest medical advances in by visiting our website and following us on LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook.

About the Author

Steven M. Moskowitz, MD, is the Senior Medical Director and supervisor of Paradigm Outcome’s complex pain program. Dr. Moskowitz is a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation with clinical expertise in complex musculoskeletal and neurologic rehabilitation including spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis and chronic pain.