.jpg)
According to Wikipedia, a ‘pseudoscience’ is “often characterised by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims, relying on confirmation bias rather than attempts at refutation. There is often a lack of openness to evaluation by experts, with hypotheses being continually discredited.” Wikipedia also acknowledges that following some pseudoscience’s can be dangerous, not just to yourself but to others around you. The example provided references the “anti-vaccine” pseudoscience and the “home-remedy alternatives” that often come about. This belief leads people to forgo critical medical treatment which increases the number of preventable death and injuries.
Below is a list of common pseudoscience’s. This is not to say that none of these will ever work! If you try a specific treatment method and it works (from both a practitioner’s perspective or a client’s perspective), then who am I to say that it is wrong? This post is just to highlight some ‘controversial’ methods in practise which hold ‘limited’ evidence (much of the time).
I. ACUPUNCTURE: there is no anatomical, nor histological, evidence showing that this method “restores the balance of qi”. A high number of scientific research states the claim that acupuncture simply works as a Placebo, working for those who believe in the ideology.
II. DRY NEEDLING: similarly, Dry Needling is Acupuncture without the traditional Chinese ‘knowledge’ of qi. Again, it is said to work as a Placebo, working for those who believe in the practise.
III. AROMATHERAPY: this practise uses essential oils and aroma compounds in order to improve psychological and/ or physical wellbeing. There is no “good medical evidence” that aromatherapy works, however, the topical nature of this treatment (i.e. massage, inhalation and water immersion) can be nice for some people.
IV. CHIROPRACTICE: the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, typically concerning the spine. The ‘pseudoscience’ claim lingers over the chiropractic practise as the claim that these disorders can affect general health are not based on strong scientific principles or evidence.
V. CRYSTAL HEALING: the belief that specific crystals have healing properties (found popular within the New Age movement).
VI. CUPPING THERAPY: there is evidence that this practise goes way back to around 1550 BC, but the notion that pulling the skin up to increase blood flow also goes with no good scientific evidence, and in some cases, Wet and Fire Cupping holds some risk.
VII. EAR CANDLING: claims to improve general health by lighting one end of a hollowed-cone with the other end inside the ear canal. There has actually been experiments showing that there is little to no wax actually removed from the ear canal after treatment, and the waxy-substance within the candle is the candle wax itself (see YouTube link below).
VIII. HEALTH BRACELETS: the belief that Ionized bracelets, Hologram bracelets or Magnetic jewellery can improve the chi of the user holds no scientific evidence.
IX. MAGNET THERAPY: when magnetic fields can positively influence general health.
I hope this post shed some light into the vast number of additional treatment methods practised in the medical field today which still need some more credible scientific evidence to be classed as ‘not a Pseudoscience’.
As always, I am always available to talk through dominic.sportstherapist@gmail.com .
Have a great day!