One of the most common criticisms of this blog has been that it is mean, unkind, or unfair of me to critique claims about conventional and alternative medicine made by vets and others. I have addressed this subject before:
These posts, and the quotes they contain from many proponents of alternative medicine, including Mr. Habib, illustrate how the people who are upset by my criticism are frequently loudly proclaiming that science-based medicine is useless or harmful and that conventional vets are ignorant, dupes or shills for industry, or otherwise knowingly providing poor patient care compared to that provided by these advocates of alternative medicine. They base their work and advocacy around the notion that everyone else is wrong, and then they feel unfairly treated when someone disputes their claims.
Nobody likes to be criticized, or even to have their claims disputed in a fact-based, impersonal way. However, when you make a point of publicly attacking mainstream science or medicine, or when you promote unproven or demonstrably ineffective treatments and claim they are safe and effective, it is fair and appropriate for others to challenge these claims and attacks. I try to be fair and focused on ideas and claims, not personality or other irrelevant personal characteristics, but I don’t feel it is inherently wrong to push back against efforts to denigrate science-based medicine or convince pet owners to fear it and to turn instead to unproven or ineffective alternatives. Complaints that challenges to their claims is unkind or meanspirited are just a self-serving way for alternative medicine advocates to try and insulate themselves from criticism.
Most of the angry reaction to my critiques has taken the form of comments or emails, but social media personality and activist Rodney Habib has used his communication skills to take this self-righteous and hypocritical outrage to a new level. In a slick video of a series of talks he has apparently given to students interested in veterinary medicine, he refers to the suicide crisis in veterinary medicine. In this talk he implies that I am partly responsible. (Interestingly, this video was posted well before my recent article specifically discussing the individuals, including Mr. Habib, who participated in the Truth About et Cancer videos.)
Mr. Habib’s video suggests that I “slam” vets who dare to “think outside of the box.” This not only mischaracterizes my substantive critiques of pseudoscience, but it ignores the attacks and criticisms the folks I write about make against conventional veterinary medicine. It also infantilizes veterinarians by suggesting that disagreement and debate about these issues is harmful to our mental health.
Additionally, this kind of sideways attack on my work here trivializes the serious problem of mental health and suicide in veterinary medicine by using the topic as a vehicle to attack me just because Mr. Habib dislikes what I have to say. It also directs attention away from real and addressable causes of the problem. There are many factors that contribute to the mental health crisis in veterinary medicine, from work environments, financial stresses, and cultural factors, but the refusal of skeptics and mainstream veterinarians to allow pseudoscience in our field to pass unchallenged is not one of them.
There are many thoughtful discussions of the mental health problem in veterinary medicine that deserve to be taken much more seriously than Mr. Habib’s comments. Here are just a few:
Mr. Habib ends his video with the url and logo for Not One More Veterinarian (NOMV), a non-profit focused on addressing the issues of suicide and mental health in veterinary medicine. I have been assured by the board of NOMV that the organization did not produce or endorse this video or the attack on me contained in it.