Corrupt quacks find a new way to look "respectable..."

[Archae]

Want to Trick People Into Believing You’re a Doctor? Then Buy a “Pastoral Medicine” Degree

April 26, 2016 by Hemant Mehta 62 Comments

Want an easy way to trick people? Just put random letters after your name as if you have an advanced degree and see how many people fall for it.

That’s what the Pastoral Medical Association seems to be doing. Unlike getting an MD or RN after your name, you don’t have to hold a specialized grad school degree to obtain your PSC.D or D.PSc degree (for pastoral care). You just have to pay them some cash and agree with their principles.

And if you acquire those credentials, what does it mean?

Basically nothing. But some patients will still take your advice seriously. And that’s the problem.

That includes patients like 60-year-old Mark Sarchioto, who lives just outside Dallas. Sarchioto has crippling neuropathy and has been searching for a treatment for decades. One leg is numb, and as he shifts from his walker to the couch, he holds out his left hand.

“It feels like somebody is puncturing it with needles,” he says. “Right now it’s cold and I can’t keep it warm.”

That man needs to see a real doctor. Instead, he went to see Karl Jawhari, D.PSc.

“We’ve seen people with an array of issues: thyroid issues, diabetes, blood pressure, cholesterol,” Jawhari says. “We work with a lot of people to reduce their weight and so forth and we’ve had great success with that.”

I have just as much credibility to help people deal with those issues as he does.

NPR reports that Jawhari has been in trouble with both the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners (for deceptive advertising) and the Texas Medical Board (for attempting to treat conditions beyond his training). He says these things are no longer a concern. Take that as you will.

In any case, he has letters after his name, so people see him. Even if it’s legal for him to offer advice, let’s be clear: These are credentials he bought, not earned in any meaningful way. And that somehow poses no moral quandary for the Christian ministry doling these certifications out.

Much as we say with alternative medicine practitioners, let’s hope patients get the care they need and aren’t duped by imitators who have very little of value to offer. It’s no different from so-called ministers who offer faith-healing. It just looks slightly more professional. Which comes in handy when you’re trying to reel in gullible people with large wallets.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/04/26/want-to-trick-people-into-believing-youre-a-doctor-then-buy-a-pastoral-medicine-degree/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=friendlyatheist_042716UTC050437_daily&utm_content=&spMailingID=51249744&spUserID=MTE4MTY1MzAzMTE5S0&spJobID=903459919&spReportId=OTAzNDU5OTE5S0

[Wilms]

1. Here's an interesting snip.

Back in 1984, the extrapolated statistics from relatively few records in only several states of the United States estimated that between 44,000-98,000 people annually die in hospitals because of medical errors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice_in_the_United_States

It's amazing to me how you never seem to catch one of these many stories.

[Archae]

2. And this has what to do with the price of tea in China?

Lame attempt at defending quacks through diversion.

[Wilms]

3. I'm not defending them.

I'm offending the AMA...and perhaps you as well.

[HuckleB]

5. So, as usual, you have no purpose here whatsoever.

[HuckleB]

4. It's amazing that you think that makes the scam ok.

[Wilms]

6. I already said I'm not defending them.

[HuckleB]

7. That really doesn't make your post any less silly.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-by-medicine/

[Wilms]

8. I was figuring you guys would put up some links.

Surely you are concerned with the fact that some doctors are quacks. You guys don't give them a free ride just because the type of medicine they practice is acceptable to you. Do you??

[HuckleB]

9. No one is giving any quack a free ride.

Your ludicrous attempts at pretending that we do doesn't help you at all. It just shows that you will say anything to continue to promote scam artists. The fact is that you confessed that you don't understand any of the actual issues. You just want to paint a picture that has nothing to do with the real world in order to foment doubt about science and promote scam artists. If you try to pretend that it is otherwise, I will make sure to point out every scam OP you "like" from now on...

[Wilms]

10. Did I promote anyone?

[HuckleB]

11. Are you saying you haven't liked plenty of scam supporting OPs?

Really?

Then I suggest you stop, because the next time I see it, I will point it out to everyone.

Here's one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=10027763092&info=1#recs

Should I find more?

[Wilms]

12. I am not aware of doing any such thing, Huck.

Of course, if I said anything remotely positive about any modality of medicine that YOU disapprove of, I suppose you would think that I have.

Isn't that right, Huck?

[HuckleB]

13. So you we're not yourself at the time?

Or.... What?

It has nothing to do with my approval. A scam is a scam.

[Wilms]

14. And anyone who disagrees with you...

[HuckleB]

17. Anyone who can't support their claims.

That's the part you repeatedly skip. When you can support your claims, you will have an actual reason to disagree with me on the things you seem to want to disagree with me upon. Since you can't, you really have a problem that you have failed to recognize.

[Wilms]

21. Well we'vebeen through that.

According to you, I didn't get better after seeing an acupuncturist. And of course, who would know better how I feel than, er, you?

[HuckleB]

22. An anecdotal placebo effect?

Choosing a placebo anecdote over actual science does not make sense. Think about the time and resources you have to put in for acupuncture, a treatment that is not supported by science. That gets to the realization that acupuncturists don't have respect for science, people's time or resources. It's fairly astounding.

[Wilms]

25. Lots of placebo effect regardless of modality.

Pharm research shows that sort of thing all the time. The amazing sugar pill!

[HuckleB]

26. Yes, but that doesn't justify the creation of scam treatments.

http://www.dcscience.net/2013/05/30/acupuncture-is-a-theatrical-placebo-the-end-of-a-myth/

[Wilms]

27. Would you have preferred me taking pills for a bad shoulder?

What do you recommend, Doc?

Hey, one of my favorite MDs did an amazing job on an elderly friend. I had dropped him off at the docs one day because he "wasn't good". An hour later I picked him up and he was chipper. I asked if the doc had given him B12 or something. No. They "just talked".

That's perfectly good medical practice in my book!

[HuckleB]

28. It appears that you didn't need pills.

You certainly didn't need acupuncture.

[Wilms]

29. What is it that I did need, Doc?

Surgery, sugar pills, real pills??

[HuckleB]

30. It appears you needed only time.

If a bit of mindfulness, or a reality check/CBT thought process might help, well, there's that. But it's not like acupuncture did anything on a biological level.

[Wilms]

31. Funny that the "time" I needed had arrived at the same time as the treatment.

I had that happy anecdotal and coincidental outcome every time I went to the theater, as the author you pointed to claims an acupuncturist's office is.

One day, I'll tell you what happened with herbs...but only if you are sitting on the fainting couch. I wouldn't want you to fall and mess up your shoulder.

[HuckleB]

32. In other words, you really want to believe the placebo is something greater.

It doesn't matter that it has been shown to be nothing. This might explain why you don't care about the science on other topics, either.

https://sites.google.com/site/skepticalmedicine//the-plural-of-anecdote-is-not-data

[Wilms]

33. I'm not interested in "believing" anything.

And your assertion that I "don't care about the science on other topics, either" could only be based in a "belief" that you, oddly unscientifically, hold dear.

I'm surprised that you weren't more rigorous in your analysis prior to making claims about someone you don't know. Very unscientific.

[HuckleB]

34. It's based on the evidence that you don't acknowledge the science, repeatedly.

Sure, it's anecdotal, but, to date, I have yet to see you acknowledge the science in any area.

[Wilms]

35. There you have it.

YOU "have yet to see (me) acknowledge the science (as you see fit to deem as such) in any area".

College logic would have helped you avoid stepping in it. Huck says: "I have not seen Wilms acknowledge what I deem scientific, therefore Wilms does not acknowledge science".

Your obsession has got the better of you, Huck. Perhaps I have too.

[HuckleB]

36. You can keep dreaming, since dreams appear your favorite type of evidence.

You have had chances to acknowledge the science in multiple areas, yet you have not done so. Even if you do in one area, or more, you habitually do not acknowledge it. You certainly do not acknowledge it in a way that matters, because you repeatedly work very hard to ensure that your preconceptions are not changed by science.

[Wilms]

37. I am not aware of doing any such thing, Huck.

Perhaps you should light up a smoke and relax. Doctor approved, ya know.

http://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/news/print/hemonc-today/%7B241d62a7-fe6e-4c5b-9fed-a33cc6e4bd7c%7D/cigarettes-were-once-physician-tested-approved

[uriel1972]

15. Start a new thread with evidence...

How these people were deceived into accepting treatments without any evidence to support them, by people without qualifications or any kind of process to oversee their work.

There are scandals and failures and people who slip through the systems and others that simply make mistakes. As someone who has worked in the health sector, I would never deny that. Point out to me the sector that does not.

There is no conspiracy here.

[Wilms]

19. Did I say there was a conspiracy?

(I love the way that word gets thrown in and around.)

[uriel1972]

38. I exaggerated for effect...

It's amazing to me how you never seem to catch one of these many stories.

You did seem to be implying a deliberate attempt to hide something though.

[Wilms]

40. OK. So you exaggerated.

And you suggest that I "seem to be implying".

We're off to a great start, you and me.

[DetlefK]

16. Sorry, I'm bad with numbers. Can you explain this to me?

How many percent of people visiting a hospital die of medical errors?

How many percent of people visiting "quacks" die of medical errors?

[HuckleB]

18. How many people do quacks save from cancer, stroke, heart attack...?

Last edited Thu Apr 28, 2016, 11:43 AM - Edit history (2)

That's right. Zero.

So, how many people would die if they utilized scams instead of actual health care? Can you count that high?

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-by-medicine/

[Wilms]

20. I don't know that number.

Good question. But those are impressive numbers at the link. Aren't they?

[uriel1972]

39. No-one visiting a quack...

dies of a "medical" error, no medicine to be found there.
They die out of ignorance and/or greed on the part of those who practice/promote such things. It is in my mind manslaughter if ignorance, murder if greed.

[HuckleB]

23. Another dose of reality.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-by-medicine/

[Wilms]

24. I certainly agree with a lot of that.

An old friend (who wasn't old) died recently. She had surgery after an aneurysm, and a stroke in the OR. Real bad. I'm assuming they did everything right. And I'm assuming that years ago she wouldn't have survived long enough to go into the OR in the first place.

AND, believe it or not, Huck, I can walk and chew gum at the very same time!

[yellowcanine]

41. Yellow Canine PBSD,RVS (Professional BS Detector and Random Vampire Slayer)