This Dr he is pushing is something else.
Kennedy touts unconventional therapies for measles linked to disciplined Texas doctor
A team from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention arrived in Texas this week to aid in the response to a growing measles outbreak, and US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged that they would talk to “front-line doctors and see what is working on the ground” and learn about therapeutics “ignored” by the agency.
There is a highly effective vaccine that prevents measles but no specific antiviral to treat it. Kennedy has previously pushed the use of vitamin A, and in an interview with Fox News this week, he endorsed an unconventional treatment regimen for measles including a steroid, an antibiotic and cod liver oil, which is rich in vitamin A.
In the interview, which was posted in full on Fox Nation, Kennedy praised two West Texas doctors who he said were using this remedy on their patients and had seen “almost miraculous and instantaneous recovery.” He said these doctors had “treated most of the patients” in the current outbreak, which has now reached 159 reported cases.
One of the doctors Kennedy is apparently taking cues from has troubled history. He was disciplined by the Texas Medical Board in 2003 for “unusual use of risk-filled medications.”
Kennedy said HHS would do a clinical trial on the steroid budesonide, the antibiotic clarithromycin and cod liver oil therapies and said “we recommend to local physicians that they consider vitamin A and their protocols. He also suggested that vitamin A may work “as a prophylaxis,” although doctors say it does not prevent measles.
Read more Link
This is a pretty good explanation of quackery:
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy
Volume 11, Issue 2, March–April 2015, Pages 288-296
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy
The appeal of medical quackery: A rhetorical analysis
Rebecca M. Widder B.A., B.S.P.S., Douglas C. Anderson Pharm.D., D.Ph.
Summary
Medical quackery has been a pressing issue nearly from the start of the medical profession – whether the nostrums and patent medications of old or the super-foods and miracle supplements of today. Throughout history and into the modern day, the medical establishment has tried to counteract the claims of charlatans in order to protect patients from potentially harmful treatments. Countering today's pseudo-medicine begins with an examination of what makes patients susceptible to the claims of quack medicine. Understanding why patients are susceptible to dubious health claims begins with an examination of the rhetoric used to persuade a demographic toward alternative therapies. This knowledge can then be used to educate patients, and to better demonstrate the benefits of evidence-based medicine while improving patient interactions.
Introduction
From patent medications and nostrums to super-foods and miracle supplements, medical fraud, often referred to as “quackery,” has historically been a pressing and emotionally charged issue for health care professionals. Much like today, historical analysis of 18th century English quackery shows that those making dubious medical claims excelled at 3 things: taking advantage of new market opportunities, building a brand name, and advertising their product.1 In fact, as reported by Huisman, the founders of the Dutch Society Against Quackery first wrote a book in the late 1800's aiming to combat quackery by analyzing the techniques charlatans used to sell their remedies.2 Like in the past, assessing the advertising of today's pseudo-medicine can provide an understanding of what makes those seeking alternative medicine susceptible to dubious medical claims. This understanding can provide health care practitioners with new ways to address misleading health care claims with their patients.
Today's quackery is defined by the National Council Against Health Fraud as “promoting health products, services, or practices of questionable safety, effectiveness, or validity for an intended purpose,” and further clarified as therapy that provides risk of harm without providing offsetting benefit.3, 4 It often takes the form of alternative medicine, marketed under the umbrella of the Complementary and Alternative Medicine movement.3, 5 Since there has been evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of some forms of complementary medicine (i.e. the use of zinc for the common cold, yoga for chronic lower back pain, or peppermint oil for irritable bowel syndrome), this is not a claim that all forms of CAM constitute quackery.6, 7, 8 Rather, it is an acknowledgment that the overarching definition of CAM includes treatment modalities that have historically been a feeding ground for quack medicine.3, 5 Organizations such as the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and the Cochrane Collaboration recognize the difficulty in providing a definitive definition of CAM outside of an exhaustive list of current CAM therapies. However, it is agreed that CAM consists of treatments that originated outside of conventional Western medicine, are not a part of standard treatment for a disease state, and not generally delivered by conventional medical personnel.9, 10 A particular CAM therapy is considered “complementary” if it is used alongside Western medicine, and “alternative” if it used instead of Western medicine.9 The term “integrative medicine” has also been used for the use of conventional medicine along with CAM therapies backed by high-quality evidence.9 Evidence of efficacy is not a part of the consideration in a CAM classification, and therefore CAM includes both “proven” and “unproven” therapies.10 This unfortunate ambiguity may lead to a tension between CAM rhetoric and conventional medicine throughout this paper. Since it is not the intention to deepen the schism between Western medicine and efficacious CAM, the term “integrative medicine” will be used to refer to evidence-based CAM and the term “CAM” or “alternative medicine” will be used to refer to the broader field from which quackery tends to come. Developing a classification scheme that clearly separates the quackery from the legitimate therapies is beyond the scope of this paper. For clarity, NCCAM's categorization of different therapies classified as CAM have been summarized and provided in Table 1.9 This paper seeks to provide a brief rhetorical analysis of the historical and current advertising of quackery in the form of CAM rhetoric in order to build an understanding of what makes a consumer or patient more likely to fall prey to quack medicine.
[If you would like to read the rest of the paper let me know and I will get you a PDF version]
www.threads.net
