(4/2019) I recently received in the mail, unsolicited, a magazine entitled Herbal Medicine. This is one of many unsolicited mailings I have been receiving addressed to Michal (misspelled) Rosenthal, thus clearly originating from the same junk mailing operation. The cover states "Which Kitchen Spice Healed a Deadly Wound in Just 40 Minutes?" and "Amazing Blood Pressure Mushroom Works Even When Drugs Don’t," and "Plus, The herb combo that beats 80% of hard-to-treat cancers – without chemo, radiation or surgery." And to make it even better, "Your Free Herbal Healing Chart is Enclosed."

Does this sound too good to be true? Well, of course it does, and It Is Too Good To Be True. I find this infuriating, that a profit-centered motive is being used to drive people away from proper medical care with false hopes.

The force behind this publication is a naturopathic physician pictured in his white lab coat. He says, "As a doctor, I recommend this book wholeheartedly." Naturopathic physicians use Dr. before their name. But so do I! I however am not a medical doctor, and neither is he. I was once told never to check into a hotel as "Dr." because I would be awakened during the night for a medical emergency.

Do the naturopathic physicians really believe their claims? Do the promoters of these products that cure nothing and prevent people from seeking appropriate medical care sleep at night? I don’t know. In my academic career I spent many years at a small college as Health Profession Advisor, and I saw many students progress into medical careers. It truly infuriates me to see pseudo-science that endangers peoples’ lives aggressively marketed, keeping people from seeking real health care. But as Mel Brooks said, "Everything Is Show Business."

Let’s take a look at some of the specific items in this booklet.

One treatment promoted here is using barberry root, licorice, and burdock root "to inhibit various cancers, protect against cancer-causing toxins, prevent tumor formation or block estrogen from stimulating breast cancer cells." This is just one of many herbs cited to prevent or cure cancer. Why do you suppose The Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan Kettering, Johns Hopkins, and other major medical centers do not promote such treatments? Because though they may or may not harm you, there is no scientific evidence that they do you any good in any way, much less cure or prevent cancer.

Here’s another one. If you’ve had a heart attack, and you are worried about having another one, there is a "delicious, pungent herb" that is good for "strengthening and toning your heart." To learn more about this herb, you have to buy "Prescription for Herbal Healing", 2nd edition, for around $50.

Let’s look at one more miracle cure. "This delicious drink cured my Mom’s diabetes." The cure is an herb, fenugreek. The claim is that it prevents glucose from entering your bloodstream too quickly. The brochure promoting the book goes on and on, touting cures for arthritis, making your brain happy with oxygen, smelling lavender to help you sleep, treating Alzheimer’s with ginkgo biloba, erasing facial wrinkles with an herbal extract, healing gunshot wounds with a kitchen spice, and more.

Even if none of these herbs is harmful, commitment to them can prevent you from getting appropriate medical care. So throw away these brochures, find yourself a board-certified physician, and commit to "real science."

How do advances in medicine really take place? Trained scientists and practicing physicians study the effects of treatment and drugs on patients who are ill. Experimental treatments known as clinical trials are undertaken, and the results are evaluated by trained physicians and research scientists. Publication in respected refereed journals takes place to allow a broader audience to evaluate the protocol, and over time, new treatments and drugs evolve. The recent apparent success in curing AIDS is a good example. It’s too early to tell whether the hoped-for breakthrough has been made, but continuing study may show that we can end the horrors of AIDS.

A related topic we have been discussing here is the vaccine controversy. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism. As we’ve reported here previously, it makes no sense to say that the choice to vaccinate children should be an individual decision, because of the fact that measles especially is so contagious, that one person can infect a crowd of strangers who pass by him in a crowd. Vaccination is not only a way to protect an individual, but it must be considered that it protects the people around you. This is especially true in young school children.

Progress is being made. Eleven states have passed laws tightening requirements for vaccine exemptions. California has passed a law abolishing all non-medical exemptions from vaccines after a measles outbreak in Disneyland sickened dozens of unvaccinated children. The California vaccine rate is now 95%. The World Health Organization lists "vaccine hesitancy" as one of the top 10 global health threats for 2019.

The broader picture is that education in scientific thinking is critically important for everyone. The great majority of students do not plan to become scientists, but scientific thinking is a critical component of education for all people, in order to live happily in a complex world.

A recent editorial in the New York Times discussed cosmetic safety. A number of stories have surfaced recently about dangerous substances in cosmetics. Asbestos has been a particular concern in talc products. Some 12,000 law suits have resulted from people claiming asbestos in baby powder gave them cancer. Nail polish can contain toluene, an organic chemical linked to liver and kidney damage. Many shampoos contain parabens, which have been linked to reproductive health risks in animals. Much more regulation has taken place with cosmetics in recent years, but there are still some unresolved concerns. Consumer fear of chemicals has grown so great that scientists refer to it as chemophobia. It led me to research the chemicals I worked with most in my graduate research to see if anything has been discovered that would kill me, and fortunately I haven’t found anything!

Let’s end on a more positive topic. Have you ever wondered whether DNA testing can differentiate between identical siblings? Until recently it could not, and thus the wrong identical twin could be arrested for a crime. In fact this ambiguity happened in a criminal case in 1999, and no arrest was made. The development of a new scientific technique that differentiates DNA between identical siblings has led to the opening of a number of cold cases. The technique is now moving toward universal acceptance.

Read other articles by Michael Rosenthal