Kudos to Amanda Schaffer for exposing the unscientific basis for much that passes for mind-body medicine.

Neglected though are the vested interests among psychiatrists who believe that the key to obtaining grants is to make unsubstantiated claims about the benefits of their studies for extending human life.

My colleagues and I recently published a careful review of the available literature in which we concluded that there never had been any evidence that psychotherapy or support groups prolonged the survival of cancer patients, including flawed classic studies making claims to the contrary.

The reaction from some grant holders was swift. The president of my university was contacted twice to complain that I was demoralizing the young people in the field. Colleagues in my own and other departments at my university reported being contacted to pressure me.

Exaggerated claims about mind-body connections are associated with big $$$$.

James Coyne, Ph.D.

University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine

"Exaggerated claims about mind-body connections are associated with big $$$$."

As are claims of medical cures coming from the established health industry.

I haven't read the book yet, but the article dwells on the negatives of what you are calling mind-body medicine. Certainly there are Quacks and half-learned practitioners everywhere but until you have studied traditional chinese medicine and philosophy in some depth you probably shouldn't dismiss the important connection between spirit and body just because you reviewed a few studies and found them wanting.

Philosophy refers to conceptions of "soul," "god," etc. in order to put labels on tough-to-quantify notions of what's right and wrong, of immortal conceptions of proper thought and behavior. I suggest that you go back and read those texts you claim fondness for with more scrutiny.

As I understand, reputable psychiatrists say that they are improving the patient's quality of life. That's plausible. I am not familiar with claims that they actually improve the prognosis. That's absurd. It is disgusting but not surprising that big $$$$ is involved.

Actually, as it happens, there is little evidence that any treatment for cancer has a significant effect. Mind-body or conventional -- for many types of cancer, there is no cure. Quoting Farley & Cohen "Prescription for a Healthy Nation," p. 8:

"In the last twenty-five years, the five-year survival rate for cancer has improved from about 50 percent to a little over 60 percent. Most of the boost has been for cancers that can be spotted early and cut out by surgeons, such as cancer of the colon and breast. For cancers that hide well or spread quickly, most notably lung cancer, medical care is nearly useless; 'breakthroughs' in treatment are usually measured in a few extra months or even extra weeks of survival. Overall, cancer mortality in the United States is unchanged in the last twenty-five years and higher now than it was in 1950 (even after taking into account the aging population) because a rise in the number of people developing cancer has swamped any improvements in treatment. As recently as the mid 1990s, an expert trying to measure the benefits of medical care ignored cancer because he considered the effects of treatment negligible. [Ref. J. P. Bunker et al.]"