May 20, 2006

Question: I was at a local medical meeting last night where "alternative thyroid hormone therapy" was a topic of discussion. One physician was quite offensive in his comments about your reports that fibromyalgia patients need thyroid hormone treatment. As best I could determine, he has never read any of your books or your website. Neither had a couple of other physicians who seemed to agree that you're some sort of dirt ball for spreading false information. Incidentally, I’ve read your books, your website, and your research articles. I respect your work and defended you at the meeting. Having an interest in your work and you as a character, I’m curious about how you take being unjustly bashed by others?

Dr. Lowe: You may know that I’m a devout critical rationalist, and as such, I welcome and appreciate constructive criticism. "Being unjustly bashed," however, is another matter.

I only rarely hear that someone has unfairly castigated me for my unconventional views. Whenever I do, I take solace in a statement by J. Paul Getty, whose unconventional views in business during the depression helped make him once the richest man in the world. Based on his personal experience, he wrote: "In business, as in politics, it is never easy to go against the beliefs and attitudes held by the majority. The businessman who moves counter to the tide of prevailing opinion must expect to be obstructed, derided, and damned."

The same is true in medicine and research. The consistent pressure is to conform to conventional beliefs. When one declines to do so, the reactions of some physicians and researchers are far less than cordial. Some of us, however, are stubbornly committed to unearthing and spreading the truth. This make it impossible for us to conform when doing so will violate what we believe to be the truth. Fortunately, over time, I’ve become inured to derision; today, it’s more amusing to me than punitive.

October 3, 2005

Question: In the Introduction to The Metabolic Treatment of Fibromyalgia, you quote Dr. Peter Duesberg's anecdote from Inventing the AIDS Virus.[1] I am interested in whether you agree with Dr. Duesberg's assessment that the HIV virus is not the virus that causes AIDS?

Dr. Lowe: Before studying the relevant evidence, I accepted without question the belief that HIV causes AIDS. Then, like Dr. Kary Mullis (Nobel Prize, 1993),[2] I learned that researchers have never published a study credibly showing that HIV is the cause. Indeed, researchers have failed to show that HIV is the cause by  Koch's classic postulates, or by Prof. Duesberg's alternate postulates for proving that a virus induces a disease.

Having long studied the evidence as a logician and critical analyst, I'm compelled to conclude that the belief is false. The bases of this false belief, in my view, are nothing more than science incompetence and fraud compounded by financial greed. This performance of "medical science" is a mishandling and exploitation of human illness that is tragic on a grand scale.

If you are a student of the issue, I would be interested in hearing your point of view and any criticisms you have of mine. Very best wishes.

References

1. Duesberg, P.H.: Inventing the AIDS Virus. Washington, Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1996.

2. Mullis, K.: Dancing in the Mind Field. New York, Pantheon Books, 1998. 

September 12, 2005

Question: I have a question that I’m a little embarrassed to ask. Actually, I’m embarrassed for my MD because of his attitude. Here’s what happened. I read your  book named The Metabolic Treatment Fibromyalgia. I was blown away by how sensible and scientific your ideas are. I was so enthusiastic that I urged my MD to read them. He’s always been cooperative and helpful to me and my family, so I was shocked and disappointed with what happened. He borrowed the books and read parts of each of them. Then when I was back in his office to get some lab test results, he gave them back to me. He said you make a lot of sense and certainly back up what you say with plenty of evidence. But he said that after reading much of the books, he realized that you’re a chiropractor. He told me he threw them aside and didn’t touch them again until I came back so he could return them to me. He said he resented that you’d tricked him into thinking you must be an MD. He said if I can find an MD who says the same things you do, then he’ll think of putting me through the treatment you suggest, but otherwise, he can’t cooperate with what I want. He asked me to ask you if you know an MD who shares your ideas. Somehow this just seems stupid to me. I was left speechless and really didn’t know what to say to him, except that I was very disappointed in his prejudiced attitude. What do you think I should say to him?

Dr. Lowe: First, let me say that very few MDs I encounter have your doctor’s attitude. I believe most of the MDs I talk with realize that beliefs, such as those we expressed in the two books you had him read, have in and of themselves, "truth value"—that is, the beliefs are either true or false, based on the evidence from which we deduced the beliefs. These MDs, which I believe are in the majority, think straight.

On the other hand, I sometimes encounter MDs who, like yours, are simply irrational, at least in this particular regard. They base too many of their decisions on the classical logical fallacy called ad hominem. This simply means that whether they accept a belief as true or false depends strictly on who states the belief, without consideration of the evidence for or against the belief.

Several years ago, I had an experience that perfectly illustrates ad hominem thinking—or, more correctly, misthinking. An editor for WebMD wrote an email to me. He was clear that he’d written because he was enthusiastic about some of my published beliefs about hypothyroidism and fibromyalgia. He wanted to publish some of the beliefs on WebMD. But he also made it clear that he could publish my beliefs only if I could refer him to an MD who would parrot my beliefs. He was flagrantly practicing ad hominem, suggesting that the readers of WebMD would consider my beliefs credible only if they came from the pen or keyboard of an MD. The beliefs wouldn’t be credible, however, if uttered by a DC. I could have but didn't given him the names of several brilliant and highly rational MDs who share the beliefs that had so impressed the editor. To have cooperated with his request would've been to condone, facilitate, and perpetuate his crooked thinking.

I wrote above that MDs such as yours are irrational, and I specified "in this particular regard." By that, I meant that I have no idea whether they are irrational in other respects. But clearly, they shamelessly practice ad hominem and fail to see how classically illogical it is. I must add, though, that when I encounter such MDs, I usually question them in depth, and I often find that they’re also highly illogical in other respects. Their irrationalities are common among people who don’t bother or haven’t learned to think straight. Their irrationalities are so common that thousands of years ago, logicians gave the thinking errors labels—such as ad hominem—to help people recognize and protect themselves from the errors.

Unfortunately, what I also generally find among these particular MDs is a mixture of both irrationality and arrogance. By arrogance I mean an attitude that they can’t possibly be wrong about anything they believe, simply because it is they themselves who hold the belief. They believe it, so ipso factor, it must be true. Irrationality and arrogance are a tough mixture to deal with. The reason is that the doctor’s arrogance protects him or her from open-mindedly evaluating the evidence that shows his or her belief to be wrong. So he or she won’t consider for a second any evidence that contradicts the belief.

A classic example of such conduct is that of Dr. Richard Guttler, a self-proclaimed "real thyroid expert." In a critique, I effectively demolished with scientific evidence his beliefs about hypothyroidism. Without addressing the evidence I'd presented, he simply slithered away from the debate. He couldn’t defend his beliefs because the evidence I provided clearly showed them to be false. And I believe that his arrogance made it impossible for him to publicly admit that he’d been whupped. I believe Guttler’s example perfectly illustrates the futility of trying to get those who are both irrational and arrogant to see how utterly wrongheaded they often are.

As for your particular MD, hopefully he’s generally rational. If you share this email with him, he may realize that a doctor—in fact, any person—of sound mind accepts and acts on scientifically correct information no matter who expresses it—an MD, a chiropractor, a dishwasher, or a garbage man. If on the other hand, he’s blinded by arrogance, maybe you and your family will fare best by questioning whether the doctor can think straight enough to make decisions truly favorable to your health and well-being. That’s a question I sincerely hope you don’t have to ask yourselves.

August 1, 2004

Question: My husband is a physician who doesn’t know much about hypothyroidism. I’m hypothyroid, so I’ve been doing research on the Internet and found your site. I see from reading your site that you do know a lot about hypothyroidism and that you offer long-distance consulting with patients. I would consider consulting with you, but my concern, and my husband’s, is that you’re a chiropractic doctor. You’ve obviously done research and learned a lot in your career. But since you went to chiropractic school rather than medical school, how can you possibly have the background education that MDs do? It seems like not having all the education you would’ve gotten in medical school would be a factor in your qualifications to consult with patients. I’m not criticizing. I’m just confused.

Dr. Lowe: Your confusion is entirely understandable. During the twentieth century, the political wing of the AMA effectively propagandized the public and most medical doctors into believing that chiropractors have at most a couple of years of college. That propaganda was as effective as Nazi propaganda in Germany before and during WW II. In fact, those within the AMA who engineered the anti-chiropractic propaganda used some of the same terminology and concepts as the Nazi propagandists. The AMA propaganda was so effective that many people, such as you, are still misguided by it.

You’ll most likely be surprised at the requirements for getting into and through chiropractic school. In 1997, I documented the requirements for both chiropractic and medical school. Since then, they’ve been posted at drlowe.com. I trust that reading them will end your understandable  confusion.

Dr. Lowe: Over the past year, I’ve received several e-mails from people reporting that doctors have tried to discredit Dr. Dennis Wilson’s views on the basis of his book being self published. I have read the book. In fact, I’ve closely studied the ideas Dr. Wilson expressed in the book and critiqued them in my book The Metabolic Treatment of Fibromyalgia. I disagree with some of Wilson’s ideas, but my reason for doing so has nothing to do with how his book got into print.

To rationally judge Dr. Wilson’s ideas, or anyone else’s, we must deal with what's relevant. What's relevant are the ideas themselves. How Dr. Wilson’s book containing those ideas got published has nothing whatever to do with the merit or demerit of the ideas.

Those who denounce Wilson’s views on the basis of how his book got into print are essentially arguing this: "If a book contains worthy ideas, one of the major corporate publishers would have published it. Hence, if a book is self published, the ideas it contains are obviously worthless."

The major corporate publishers fostered this argument during the 20th century. By getting most people to believe it, they succeeded for a while in making it tough for authors to get their books published unless they allowed the publishers to take virtually all the profits from sales. The fact is, the only books the corporations publish are those they believe will yield a sizable financial profit. With rare exception, scientific or artistic merit has nothing whatever to do with the corporate choice of books to publish.

The history of publishing shows that it’s false that only books published by big corporate publishers have merit. Some of the world’s most important scientific and medical books were self-published. Consider one of many possible examples. The book Principia Mathematica was published in 1910. This book is one of the most important documents published in the history of human thought. The authors were logicians and philosophers Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead. In the book, they showed that all mathematics is reducible to a small number of logical axioms. After working on the book for 10 years, Russell and Whitehead paid out of their pockets to have it published by the Cambridge University Press. This is an example of the "vanity publishing" the rheumatologist spoke of with disdain. But who would question the merit of Principia Mathematica? No one in his right mind. Of course, I’m not equating the importance of Wilson’s Syndrome with that of Principia Mathematica. I'm simply making an important point through the example of Principia Mathematica: The fact that a book is self published isn’t proof that its contents have no merit.

Many people also register another argument against self-publishing of books: "No self-published book can be successful; only books published by big corporate publishers have a chance for success." The success of Dr. Wilson’s book shows this argument to be false. In addition, a partial list of other authors whose self-published books were enormously successful is impressive: Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, Zane Grey, Carl Sandburg, Edgar Allen Poe, Edgar Rice Burroughs,  Elizabeth Barrett Browning, T.S. Elliot, Upton Sinclair, and Ernest Hemingway. Obviously, like the argument that self-published books can’t have merit, the argument that they can’t be successful is both fallacious and farcical.

March 9, 2000

Question: In your 1983 book Spasm, you were contemptuous of M.D.s. Now you obviously favor them over your chiropractic colleagues. Don’t you think your attitude in that book alienated some M.D.s whose support you’d like to have today?

Dr. Lowe: You’re confusing me with a pugnacious young imposter. We haven’t heard much from him since then. Hopefully that means his pugnacity gave way to a more charitable attitude—one appropriate to the improved attitude of the M.D.s he censured in the book.