The Weil deal

Over the past two decades, Dr. Andrew Weil has established himself as the pioneering voice of alternative medicine. But despite Weil's rebellious image, his prescription for the medical world is far from revolutionary. In a conversation with the Phoenix, Weil describes his vision of a well-trained and educated corps of standard physicians who aren't limited by the paradigm of conventional medicine.

Q: How do you think the relationship between the conventional and alternative medical traditions has changed over the years?

A: The only changes I've really noticed is in the public's approach to alternative practices; people are much more open to these things, and are using them with much greater frequency. It makes me more aware of the urgency in training physicians, because patients have begun to do things that their physicians don't know anything about. Doctors are seriously under-educated. Doctors are not trained in some of the things that patients are doing.

Q: But in Spontaneous Healing you talk about things -- good diet, working to reduce stress -- that are certainly not new or different from what conventional medicine emphasizes. How might this focus reflect a change in the alternative paradigm?

A: Although conventional medicine would like to claim that healthy living and prevention are things that they've been talking about, the fact is, doctors are essentially untrained in it. The food they eat is terrible, the food served in hospitals is terrible -- all the mind/body stuff is given lip service by conventional doctors, but is underutilized. Rather than just giving drugs that may or may not be effective, you might prevent illness through diet, and better and more healthy living.

Q: I am a cynic, but I also very much believe in the soul and its relationship with the body. For example, I know that when I feel bad mentally, I feel bad physically. And so, as I see it, there may be a sort of sublime potential to the soul. Just thinking about that forces me to be open to all sorts of things that my cynical side laughs at. How can one bring those natural opposing sides together.

A: That's why we need to train people to help guide you through the process, to educate you on it. People need to be open-minded skeptics, and conventional doctors need to be educated enough to help you sort out what is worthwhile and what isn't. But they need to be willing to consider all of the options.

Q: Why do you think traditional medicinal practitioners are so reluctant to even consider thinking about alternative therapies?

A: They haven't learned it in medical school. And doctors are trained to think they know everything. There is a natural fear of a thing if it didn't come through the channels that they are used to. Some of it is threatening, because it doesn't come from their tradition.

Q: And yet, some of the criticisms that they offer are fairly strong -- that the studies that have been done either turn up negative, or are flawed.

A: Firstly, the conventional world is unaware of the sum total of evidence out there. There is a great deal of evidence of good quality that is not read, so the first thing is to gather and analyze that evidence.

Second, if you are going to demand double-blind testing and the scientific process, then you need to bring that back to conventional medicine. There are a [slew] of conventional treatments that haven't passed those tests -- using bone marrow transplants for breast cancer treatment, for example.

Q: Are you ever concerned that someone might read some of the testimonials in your books, about people abandoning traditional treatments and searching for an alternative, And then, faced with extreme illness and hard choices like chemotherapy or surgery -- things that are hard and only sometimes effective -- that person might ignore their traditional doctor and end up on a wild goose chase?

A: That's a possibility, [but] it's not my book that would be responsible for that. There are a lot of other people selling a lot of other stuff. The point of those testimonials is not to argue for alternative therapies, but to raise confidence in people's own healing powers, that these serious things can go into remission.

Q: Might it be easy to misread those testimonials, though, when they give examples of people who disregard the treatments their doctors give them?

A: I haven't found it to be the case.

Q: People like Stephen Barrett and Arnold Relman say they hear about things like that happening all the time.

A: I'd have to see the cases that they talk about. I don't see that to be a problem. Most of the people who read my books and talk to me are educated and intelligent people.

Q: Also, you talk to some practitioners and they tell you these amorphous things -- homeopaths talking about quantum theory who clearly have very little working knowledge of it, chiropractors who claim to be able to treat most illnesses, including immune disorders. Some of this stuff is pretty hard to choke down. How much of alternative medicine do you think is ill-founded or dubious?

A: Well, it's a real mixture. A lot that is worthless and harmful, and it's mixed up with some very useful treatments. Same with conventional medicine, where there are a lot of procedures that don't clearly have any value, but are a lot more dangerous and invasive.

There are a great deal of ideologues who try to lump botanical medicine in with crystal healing, when there is a great deal of evidence to support botanical medicine, but not the other. [That kind of thinking] is regressive: sure there is health fraud, and it is there when you see both alternative and conventional doctors. [The health care field] is a field made to order for that kind of thing.

Q: It seems more and more that what people are talking about is complementary medicine -- things that don't necessarily affect treatment outcome, but that make a patient feel better while they are getting, say, chemotherapy, or radiation. How does that sit with you?

A: I don't like that term. It is safe for them, a comfortable one for them. That's nice, but I'm more interested in how you improve cure rates. What I am pushing for is "integrative medicine," [where a conventional MD knows about and can prescribe appropriate alternative therapies] which really tries to change the model.

Q: Where do you see for the future of alternative and complementary medicine?

A: I see reforms in the medical curriculum, increased research and doctors who know when to give an alternative treatment. Ideally, it would be great if your doctor could be your guide, if you could find an MD who could guide you through all that confusion.

Q: Do you really eat cordyceps? [fungus which grows on and is inseparable from moth larvae]

A: Yes, all the time.
-- D.A.S.

---

Back to "Miracle cure or malpractice"

---