Liberal anti-science: alternative medicine and ideological paradox

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You seem to want to use the word "race" but are afraid to say it. Out with it, man!

 

[Underseer]

This study suggests that very people actually believe in a vaccine - autism connection, and that there is no relationship to political ideology. IOW, there is arguably more hysteria about the anti-vaxers than their is hysteria against vaccines.
Now, its true that about 1 in 4 Americans are against vaccination requirements and think it should be parental choice, and the number is a bit higher among conservatives, but that doesn't mean the person is anti-vax, just anti-requirement.

As for alternative medicine, I am having trouble finding empirical data on the political breakdown of those who accept or use clear-cut quakery in the realm of alternative medicine. My guess is that the OP is correct and that it is predominantly a liberal bent. While distrust of corporations is part of it, the fact is that big corporations are mostly who are selling them supplements, homeopathy, etc.. The bigger reason is the general religious like anti-modernism, anti-tech bent among many liberals. This is rooted in a naturalistic fallacy and a romanticizing of pre-modern cultures, combined with a desire to deny any superiority of Western culture, which includes "Western" medicine (aka scientifically based medicine).

There also seems to be a much greater liberal bias towards other quackery within mental health practices, educational fads, anti-science views of nuclear power, and anti-science views on various psychological gender differences, and the massively growing body of evidence showing highly stable differences in basic cognitive abilities including a genetic influence.

The vaccine-autism claim is a specific and different issue. That one clearly straddles both ideologies, but if I recall correctly conservatives are slightly more likely to buy into that crap than liberals. I've definitely heard both pro and con arguments regarding vaccines from both conservatives and liberals on my Facebook feed.

On the other hand, none of my conservative friends have ever suggested that one can cure cancer with a diet change, but some of my liberal friends believe that.

 

[Underseer]

I think if left-ish people have any sympathy for alternative medicines it is because of how traditional medicine has been tainted by big pharma:

• big pharma "educating" (marketing to) doctors
• doctors getting kickbacks from giving said medicines
• etc

There is some distrust there. When you couple that with a market barrier in any market for sometimes better products from not becoming a "thing," there is a perception that alternative medicine X hasn't been given a fair outcome in the market. Consider, say, a Linux OS as an alternative medicine to Microsoft. Maybe it's better (maybe) but who rules the market and what will they do to keep Windows on top?

Or consider black elderberries, a known treatment for flu*. Why are there no pharmaceutical medicines for it? I am certainly not saying every alternative medicine is real--they aren't--I am just saying that there are some few valid alternative medicines and explaining the distrust. There is another quack industry that takes advantage of the distrust of mainstream medicine and also any of its failure--because yeah sometimes it does fail certain individuals--by claiming all of their alternatives are just as good as the few alternatives that work and that they're all essentially blocked by big pharma.

I personally agree with this: "[e]very truth claim should be evaluated on its own merits" but a lot of other people are disgusted with big pharma to give up on it completely or have personal experience with its failing and so are looking for something new when in reality there may be no good solution at all.

*

Show

Elderberry flavonoids bind to and prevent H1N1 infection in vitro.

Abstract

A ionization technique in mass spectrometry called Direct Analysis in Real Time Mass Spectrometry (DART TOF-MS) coupled with a Direct Binding Assay was used to identify and characterize anti-viral components of an elderberry fruit (Sambucus nigra L.) extract without either derivatization or separation by standard chromatographic techniques. The elderberry extract inhibited Human Influenza A (H1N1) infection in vitro with an IC(50) value of 252+/-34 microg/mL. The Direct Binding Assay established that flavonoids from the elderberry extract bind to H1N1 virions and, when bound, block the ability of the viruses to infect host cells. Two compounds were identified, 5,7,3',4'-tetra-O-methylquercetin (1) and 5,7-dihydroxy-4-oxo-2-(3,4,5-trihydroxyphenyl)chroman-3-yl-3,4,5-trihydroxycyclohexanecarboxylate (2), as H1N1-bound chemical species. Compound 1 and dihydromyricetin (3), the corresponding 3-hydroxyflavonone of 2, were synthesized and shown to inhibit H1N1 infection in vitro by binding to H1N1 virions, blocking host cell entry and/or recognition. Compound 1 gave an IC(50) of 0.13 microg/mL (0.36 microM) for H1N1 infection inhibition, while dihydromyricetin (3) achieved an IC(50) of 2.8 microg/mL (8.7 microM). The H1N1 inhibition activities of the elderberry flavonoids compare favorably to the known anti-influenza activities of Oseltamivir (Tamiflu; 0.32 microM) and Amantadine (27 microM).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19682714

Emphasis added.

The effect of Sambucol, a black elderberry-based, natural product, on the production of human cytokines: I. Inflammatory cytokines.

Abstract

Sambucus nigra L. products - Sambucol - are based on a standardized black elderberry extract. They are natural remedies with antiviral properties, especially against different strains of influenza virus. Sambucol was shown to be effective in vitro against 10 strains of influenza virus. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study, Sambucol reduced the duration of flu symptoms to 3-4 days. Convalescent phase serum showed a higher antibody level to influenza virus in the Sambucol group, than in the control group. The present study aimed to assess the effect of Sambucol products on the healthy immune system - namely, its effect on cytokine production. The production of inflammatory cytokines was tested using blood - derived monocytes from 12 healthy human donors. Adherent monocytes were separated from PBL and incubated with different Sambucol preparations i.e., Sambucol Elderberry Extract, Sambucol Black Elderberry Syrup, Sambucol Immune System and Sambucol for Kids. Production of inflammatory cytokines (IL-1 beta, TNF-alpha, IL-6, IL-8) was significantly increased, mostly by the Sambucol Black Elderberry Extract (2-45 fold), as compared to LPS, a known monocyte activator (3.6-10.7 fold). The most striking increase was noted in TNF-alpha production (44.9 fold). We conclude from this study that, in addition to its antiviral properties, Sambucol Elderberry Extract and its formulations activate the healthy immune system by increasing inflammatory cytokine production. Sambucol might therefore be beneficial to the immune system activation and in the inflammatory process in healthy individuals or in patients with various diseases. Sambucol could also have an immunoprotective or immunostimulatory effect when administered to cancer or AIDS patients, in conjunction with chemotherapeutic or other treatments. In view of the increasing popularity of botanical supplements, such studies and investigations in vitro, in vivo and in clinical trials need to be developed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11399518

If you distrust money-grubbing corporations, why would you prefer unregulated money-grubbing corporations?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think if left-ish people have any sympathy for alternative medicines it is because of how traditional medicine has been tainted by big pharma:

• big pharma "educating" (marketing to) doctors
• doctors getting kickbacks from giving said medicines
• etc

There is some distrust there. When you couple that with a market barrier in any market for sometimes better products from not becoming a "thing," there is a perception that alternative medicine X hasn't been given a fair outcome in the market. Consider, say, a Linux OS as an alternative medicine to Microsoft. Maybe it's better (maybe) but who rules the market and what will they do to keep Windows on top?

Or consider black elderberries, a known treatment for flu*. Why are there no pharmaceutical medicines for it? I am certainly not saying every alternative medicine is real--they aren't--I am just saying that there are some few valid alternative medicines and explaining the distrust. There is another quack industry that takes advantage of the distrust of mainstream medicine and also any of its failure--because yeah sometimes it does fail certain individuals--by claiming all of their alternatives are just as good as the few alternatives that work and that they're all essentially blocked by big pharma.

I personally agree with this: "[e]very truth claim should be evaluated on its own merits" but a lot of other people are disgusted with big pharma to give up on it completely or have personal experience with its failing and so are looking for something new when in reality there may be no good solution at all.

*

Show

Elderberry flavonoids bind to and prevent H1N1 infection in vitro.

Abstract

A ionization technique in mass spectrometry called Direct Analysis in Real Time Mass Spectrometry (DART TOF-MS) coupled with a Direct Binding Assay was used to identify and characterize anti-viral components of an elderberry fruit (Sambucus nigra L.) extract without either derivatization or separation by standard chromatographic techniques. The elderberry extract inhibited Human Influenza A (H1N1) infection in vitro with an IC(50) value of 252+/-34 microg/mL. The Direct Binding Assay established that flavonoids from the elderberry extract bind to H1N1 virions and, when bound, block the ability of the viruses to infect host cells. Two compounds were identified, 5,7,3',4'-tetra-O-methylquercetin (1) and 5,7-dihydroxy-4-oxo-2-(3,4,5-trihydroxyphenyl)chroman-3-yl-3,4,5-trihydroxycyclohexanecarboxylate (2), as H1N1-bound chemical species. Compound 1 and dihydromyricetin (3), the corresponding 3-hydroxyflavonone of 2, were synthesized and shown to inhibit H1N1 infection in vitro by binding to H1N1 virions, blocking host cell entry and/or recognition. Compound 1 gave an IC(50) of 0.13 microg/mL (0.36 microM) for H1N1 infection inhibition, while dihydromyricetin (3) achieved an IC(50) of 2.8 microg/mL (8.7 microM). The H1N1 inhibition activities of the elderberry flavonoids compare favorably to the known anti-influenza activities of Oseltamivir (Tamiflu; 0.32 microM) and Amantadine (27 microM).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19682714

Emphasis added.

The effect of Sambucol, a black elderberry-based, natural product, on the production of human cytokines: I. Inflammatory cytokines.

Abstract

Sambucus nigra L. products - Sambucol - are based on a standardized black elderberry extract. They are natural remedies with antiviral properties, especially against different strains of influenza virus. Sambucol was shown to be effective in vitro against 10 strains of influenza virus. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study, Sambucol reduced the duration of flu symptoms to 3-4 days. Convalescent phase serum showed a higher antibody level to influenza virus in the Sambucol group, than in the control group. The present study aimed to assess the effect of Sambucol products on the healthy immune system - namely, its effect on cytokine production. The production of inflammatory cytokines was tested using blood - derived monocytes from 12 healthy human donors. Adherent monocytes were separated from PBL and incubated with different Sambucol preparations i.e., Sambucol Elderberry Extract, Sambucol Black Elderberry Syrup, Sambucol Immune System and Sambucol for Kids. Production of inflammatory cytokines (IL-1 beta, TNF-alpha, IL-6, IL-8) was significantly increased, mostly by the Sambucol Black Elderberry Extract (2-45 fold), as compared to LPS, a known monocyte activator (3.6-10.7 fold). The most striking increase was noted in TNF-alpha production (44.9 fold). We conclude from this study that, in addition to its antiviral properties, Sambucol Elderberry Extract and its formulations activate the healthy immune system by increasing inflammatory cytokine production. Sambucol might therefore be beneficial to the immune system activation and in the inflammatory process in healthy individuals or in patients with various diseases. Sambucol could also have an immunoprotective or immunostimulatory effect when administered to cancer or AIDS patients, in conjunction with chemotherapeutic or other treatments. In view of the increasing popularity of botanical supplements, such studies and investigations in vitro, in vivo and in clinical trials need to be developed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11399518

If you distrust money-grubbing corporations, why would you prefer unregulated money-grubbing corporations?

I don't think that's the only factor used in decision-making by people who turn to alternative medicine. Another factor I brought up is the failing of traditional medicine for them, personally, in some particular way. After having tried regular old-going to the doctor and it not working, they may try out door#2. Another factor which I did not bring up is all the red tape when trying to get treatment or do tests for patients--red tape that is extremely complex, internally inconsistent, and that weighs insurance cost into the final decision. People (left or right) themselves are different because they can be in control of what over-the-counter medicines, herbal supplements, whatever they give themselves.

For example, personally, when I think I may have a UTI I don't bother going to the doctor anymore. They've given me terrible service for this kind of thing. So instead I buy cranberry juice. If I have extra time, I'll go to the health food store and buy the kind of "real" cranberry juice that doesn't have the sugar additives and other juices. I didn't even know that existed for a long time, but it does actually work better.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Medical treatment here means you need to be a proactive advocate and take time out of work to find a physician who will actually listen to what you are telling them.

 

[ronburgundy]

If you distrust money-grubbing corporations, why would you prefer unregulated money-grubbing corporations?

I don't think that's the only factor used in decision-making by people who turn to alternative medicine. Another factor I brought up is the failing of traditional medicine for them, personally, in some particular way. After having tried regular old-going to the doctor and it not working, they may try out door#2. Another factor which I did not bring up is all the red tape when trying to get treatment or do tests for patients--red tape that is extremely complex, internally inconsistent, and that weighs insurance cost into the final decision. People (left or right) themselves are different because they can be in control of what over-the-counter medicines, herbal supplements, whatever they give themselves.

For example, personally, when I think I may have a UTI I don't bother going to the doctor anymore. They've given me terrible service for this kind of thing. So instead I buy cranberry juice. If I have extra time, I'll go to the health food store and buy the kind of "real" cranberry juice that doesn't have the sugar additives and other juices. I didn't even know that existed for a long time, but it does actually work better.

Liberals are not more likely to experience ineffective medical care, so that wouldn't account for liberals being more likely to turn to alternatives. (at least not white liberals; the lower SES of minorities does mean less effective care)
I think the reason lies more in the worldview of many liberals which takes a generally negative view of modernization and technology as anti-nature, and an irrationally romanticized view of nature and pre-modern societies. This explains not only why the alternative approaches are not merely different but touted for their "holistic" and "natural" aspects, and usually with some connection to pre-modern practices. After all, one could just as easily turn to untested quackery that is even more reductionistic and "unnatural" (i.e., man-made) than current accepted medical practice. Instead, they consistent go more "primitive" because it is a naturalistic fallacy that appeals to them. The same one behind their GMO fears which is as much about fear of science "playing God" as it is about distrust of corporations.

 

[AdamWho]

I have been following anti-science activism on the political left for a couple of years since I stopped posting on this board. (the board lost its sense of direction when atheism+ divided the community)

While anti-science and conspiracy theories cut across politics. Individual case of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories tend to exist mostly on one side or the other.

***

Much of the anti-science and conspiracy theories on the left often are based on anti-capitalism or anti-corporate beliefs. Similarly anti-science and conspiracy theories on the right are often based on anti-government beliefs.

When it comes to things like alt-medicine, anti-GMO, anti-vax it is better to classify them based on the underlying belief. For instance there are huge numbers of anti-GMO, anti-vax and alt-medicine people and organizations on the political left because they are stem (rightly or wrongly) from anti-corporate or anti-capitalistic beliefs.

While there are many alt-medicine, anti-GMO, anti-vax people on the left, it is easier to understand them as religious or anti-gov based beliefs.

***

What I think is most entertaining is how people on the left will do anything to deny the left has any anti-science or pseudoscience issues.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't think that's the only factor used in decision-making by people who turn to alternative medicine. Another factor I brought up is the failing of traditional medicine for them, personally, in some particular way. After having tried regular old-going to the doctor and it not working, they may try out door#2. Another factor which I did not bring up is all the red tape when trying to get treatment or do tests for patients--red tape that is extremely complex, internally inconsistent, and that weighs insurance cost into the final decision. People (left or right) themselves are different because they can be in control of what over-the-counter medicines, herbal supplements, whatever they give themselves.

For example, personally, when I think I may have a UTI I don't bother going to the doctor anymore. They've given me terrible service for this kind of thing. So instead I buy cranberry juice. If I have extra time, I'll go to the health food store and buy the kind of "real" cranberry juice that doesn't have the sugar additives and other juices. I didn't even know that existed for a long time, but it does actually work better.

Liberals are not more likely to experience ineffective medical care, so that wouldn't account for liberals being more likely to turn to alternatives. (at least not white liberals; the lower SES of minorities does mean less effective care)
I think the reason lies more in the worldview of many liberals which takes a generally negative view of modernization and technology as anti-nature, and an irrationally romanticized view of nature and pre-modern societies. This explains not only why the alternative approaches are not merely different but touted for their "holistic" and "natural" aspects, and usually with some connection to pre-modern practices. After all, one could just as easily turn to untested quackery that is even more reductionistic and "unnatural" (i.e., man-made) than current accepted medical practice. Instead, they consistent go more "primitive" because it is a naturalistic fallacy that appeals to them. The same one behind their GMO fears which is as much about fear of science "playing God" as it is about distrust of corporations.

These are assertions, though.

Personally, I am willing to turn to alternatives (when it MAKES SENSE) as I described above. If there is any correlation with me, it's because I am willing to look into the science of particular alternatives like cranberry juice from a health food store and elderberry extract examples I gave. Whether this can be extrapolated to liberals being more flexible in thinking and being wiling to check the science of very specific alternatives is a question.

As far as "playing God" yeah, I actually agree that some people are so arrogant they think they can play god even though I am not a theist. For example, as stated previously in another thread my "objections" (uneasiness really) to GMO are part of a broader uneasiness about any mass manufactured organisms of any kind because of monoculture. It's an educated uneasiness.

ETA: I will add that maybe the flexible thinking is also a factor in being open to too many things. So maybe that's Underseer's answer.

 

[Underseer]

If you distrust money-grubbing corporations, why would you prefer unregulated money-grubbing corporations?

I don't think that's the only factor used in decision-making by people who turn to alternative medicine. Another factor I brought up is the failing of traditional medicine for them, personally, in some particular way. After having tried regular old-going to the doctor and it not working, they may try out door#2. Another factor which I did not bring up is all the red tape when trying to get treatment or do tests for patients--red tape that is extremely complex, internally inconsistent, and that weighs insurance cost into the final decision. People (left or right) themselves are different because they can be in control of what over-the-counter medicines, herbal supplements, whatever they give themselves.

For example, personally, when I think I may have a UTI I don't bother going to the doctor anymore. They've given me terrible service for this kind of thing. So instead I buy cranberry juice. If I have extra time, I'll go to the health food store and buy the kind of "real" cranberry juice that doesn't have the sugar additives and other juices. I didn't even know that existed for a long time, but it does actually work better.

Sorry, but I can't have sympathy for someone rejecting science-based medicine, especially not when a liberal does it.

If they understand the dangers of having a profit motive in health care, then they should be even more suspicious of a profit motive without adequate government oversight.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Your anecdotes aren't really representative of the broader trends, and if you find it convincing the two anti-vaxxers I personally know are both right-wingers, and the individual who most prominently fills my FB feed with CAM-woo nonsense is a right-winger.

Also see: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.or...-mandela-and-jesus-christ-rolled-up-into-one/

Or browse around sites like World Nut Daily without adblock.

I am aware of the problem with anecdotal evidence. Do you have evidence showing what percentage of conservatives ascribe to alternative medicine?

Well, as one anecdote, you seem to be condemning alternative medicine, and you are conservative.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is using Dr. Google considered alternative medicine? Were it not for Dr. Google I'd probably be dead today.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't think that's the only factor used in decision-making by people who turn to alternative medicine. Another factor I brought up is the failing of traditional medicine for them, personally, in some particular way. After having tried regular old-going to the doctor and it not working, they may try out door#2. Another factor which I did not bring up is all the red tape when trying to get treatment or do tests for patients--red tape that is extremely complex, internally inconsistent, and that weighs insurance cost into the final decision. People (left or right) themselves are different because they can be in control of what over-the-counter medicines, herbal supplements, whatever they give themselves.

For example, personally, when I think I may have a UTI I don't bother going to the doctor anymore. They've given me terrible service for this kind of thing. So instead I buy cranberry juice. If I have extra time, I'll go to the health food store and buy the kind of "real" cranberry juice that doesn't have the sugar additives and other juices. I didn't even know that existed for a long time, but it does actually work better.

Sorry, but I can't have sympathy for someone rejecting science-based medicine, especially not when a liberal does it.

Would you then also have no sympathy for a liberal who rejects black elderberry extract as a treatment for flu because they reject all alternative medicines whether they are science-based or not?

If they understand the dangers of having a profit motive in health care, then they should be even more suspicious of a profit motive without adequate government oversight.

I don't even know if this whole thing about liberals and alt medicine is significant. I only know one person who is into herbal medicine to a great extent. She's a Jehovah's Witness and before latching onto any particular herb, she does research on it. She's rejected a lot of the marketing, too. She's the one who originally told me about black elderberries because I was talking to her one day when I had the flu. I was skeptical about it, but then I looked it up in scientific studies being familiar with that because of my work experiences. Cranberry juice, too, I had originally heard about from a doctor in 1993 and that was reinforced to me through my aunt who was a nurse but then over the years reinforced by a score of women who have used cranberry juice to treat their UTIs. I don't think anyone I heard from was particularly conservative or liberal, just initially people believing in their medical training and later in my life people believing in their observations as empirical evidence. I also only know one person who is into crystals. She's also into Obama conspiracies so I suspect she's a Republican but I don't know for sure. I did tell her that Obama did show his birth certificate but really I didn't know her too well and I didn't want to be rude by getting too into her politics. I did hear once from my half-brother about how his Mormon relatives were very into some kind of drink Noni juice or something.

But I did give an hypothesis about flexible thinking to answer your op. If the liberal mindset is to engage in flexible thinking, then you can expect a distribution throughout the population, including a sub-population of people who think too flexibly. Maybe there is overlap in this subset of people who entertain conspiracy theories and Gingko Biloba. However, maybe you are looking at this in the wrong direction. I mean, maybe people with weird beliefs who also happen not to ascribe to any mainstream beliefs find it is in their self-interest to be liberal. Or maybe it's just that there are more liberals out there so when you find people who believe in alt medicine they happen to be liberals. To what extent has data driven your hypotheses on this subject? Are there studies you have looked at on the topic?

As for me personally, as a flexible thinker, I can imagine that there are some herbs out there which have scientific support as good treatments for medical conditions while there are some others that do not yet have support because we don't know everything yet and, of course, there are even more herbs [and alternative medicines] involved in a greedy, lying market. Oh yes, personally, I am extremely skeptical of anyone telling me in an email about how he is a Nigerian prince, how I need XYZ for a testosterone supplement, or how some stranger wants to show me her naked body for free and all I have to do is click this link. I am just as skeptical about Gingko Biloba, essential oils, and tinctures. But none of these things mean there is no market barrier (or even infeasibility) to get some treatments into the pharmaceutical industry, that a doctor's office visit isn't heavily influenced by finance and red tape, or that particular alternative medicines cannot also be "science-based" [your phrase].

So far as liberal versus conservative mindsets, there's another completely separate [alleged] difference between conservative and liberal thinking. It's stated in a recent study that I am kind of skeptical about because it's psychology and the testing done is so rudimentary contrasted with conclusions made quite elaborate, but for fun I must refer to it. Conservatives are holistic thinkers it says. Liberals think more analytically and look at more things at an individual level according to the study. So I guess it means that if I accept a particular medicine on its merits through analysis whether or not it is traditional or alternative medicine, I am engaging in liberal thinking?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Is using Dr. Google considered alternative medicine?

It depends on the person doing the considering and for them it may or may not depend on further details?

Were it not for Dr. Google I'd probably be dead today.

Could you explain further? That sounds interesting.

 

[ronburgundy]

Sorry, but I can't have sympathy for someone rejecting science-based medicine, especially not when a liberal does it.

Would you then also have no sympathy for a liberal who rejects black elderberry extract as a treatment for flu because they reject all alternative medicines whether they are science-based or not?

If they understand the dangers of having a profit motive in health care, then they should be even more suspicious of a profit motive without adequate government oversight.

I don't even know if this whole thing about liberals and alt medicine is significant. I only know one person who is into herbal medicine to a great extent. She's a Jehovah's Witness and before latching onto any particular herb, she does research on it. She's rejected a lot of the marketing, too. She's the one who originally told me about black elderberries because I was talking to her one day when I had the flu. I was skeptical about it, but then I looked it up in scientific studies being familiar with that because of my work experiences. Cranberry juice, too, I had originally heard about from a doctor in 1993 and that was reinforced to me through my aunt who was a nurse but then over the years reinforced by a score of women who have used cranberry juice to treat their UTIs. I don't think anyone I heard from was particularly conservative or liberal, just initially people believing in their medical training and later in my life people believing in their observations as empirical evidence. I also only know one person who is into crystals. She's also into Obama conspiracies so I suspect she's a Republican but I don't know for sure. I did tell her that Obama did show his birth certificate but really I didn't know her too well and I didn't want to be rude by getting too into her politics. I did hear once from my half-brother about how his Mormon relatives were very into some kind of drink Noni juice or something.

But I did give an hypothesis about flexible thinking to answer your op. If the liberal mindset is to engage in flexible thinking, then you can expect a distribution throughout the population, including a sub-population of people who think too flexibly.

Accepting baseless claims is not the result of cognitive flexibility, but rather the opposite. Since there are infinite baseless ideas that oppose and exclude other baseless ideas, one can only come to accept any baseless idea by being dogmatically close minded to its alternatives and having an irrational bias to prefer that one over the infinite others. IOW, it requires blind faith, which is the epitome of close-mindedness. The same non-rational dogmatic mentality that leads to accepting belief in a particular God is what underlies accepting belief in a particular unsupported medical claim.

Sure, flexible thinkers don't blindly accept modern medicine because they consider the supported hypothesis that medical practice is sometimes corrupted by
non-scientific motives. And yes, they also don't blindly reject all "alternative" medicine as inherently invalid. But that only supports a willingness to examine any evidence in support of a particular treatment, but fosters resistance to accepting any alternative until sufficient evidence warrants it.

The saying "don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out" is an unfortunate mischaracterization of the problem. Believing without evidential support is the epitome of close-mindedness, because it requires baselessly rejecting the counters and alternatives to that claim.

 

[ronburgundy]

Liberals are not more likely to experience ineffective medical care, so that wouldn't account for liberals being more likely to turn to alternatives. (at least not white liberals; the lower SES of minorities does mean less effective care)
I think the reason lies more in the worldview of many liberals which takes a generally negative view of modernization and technology as anti-nature, and an irrationally romanticized view of nature and pre-modern societies. This explains not only why the alternative approaches are not merely different but touted for their "holistic" and "natural" aspects, and usually with some connection to pre-modern practices. After all, one could just as easily turn to untested quackery that is even more reductionistic and "unnatural" (i.e., man-made) than current accepted medical practice. Instead, they consistent go more "primitive" because it is a naturalistic fallacy that appeals to them. The same one behind their GMO fears which is as much about fear of science "playing God" as it is about distrust of corporations.

These are assertions, though.

They are reasonable assertions, consistent with the facts including offshoots of post-modernism that are really anti-modernism, and unlike the explanations you've offered, are capable of actually explaining why the unscientific alternatives that people seek are of the type that they are rather than being one's that are similarly baseless but more technologically-based rather than more "natural".

Personally, I am willing to turn to alternatives (when it MAKES SENSE) as I described above.

That's fine, but its irrelevant because that makes you the exception to the empirical rule that most uses of alternative medicines do not make sense, and their users have no rational basis to think they would work. The question is why do liberals that lack traditional religious reasons for resisting science, so often believe in the efficacy of clearly unscientific alternatives?

As far as "playing God" yeah, I actually agree that some people are so arrogant they think they can play god even though I am not a theist. For example, as stated previously in another thread my "objections" (uneasiness really) to GMO are part of a broader uneasiness about any mass manufactured organisms of any kind because of monoculture. It's an educated uneasiness.
.

The monoculture issue has nothing to do with playing God. Reducing the mono-culture problem can entail as much or even more "playing God" than increasing it. Also, GMOs don't directly impact monoculture issues, and could be used to reduce the problem. It is how GMOs get used that determines their relation to monoculture, so that concern wouldn't produce a general resistance to GMOs. There is a more widespread uneducated uneasiness that has little to do with any accurate understanding of monoculture issues in agriculture. The general fear of GMOs is more about viewing humanity as a kind of out of balance cancer and drawing an invalid ontologically extreme distinction between "nature" and human creations. Under this ideology, the more humans interfere, the worse of we are, despite the fact that such interference is the only reason that most people alive today exist.

 

[Underseer]

Is using Dr. Google considered alternative medicine? Were it not for Dr. Google I'd probably be dead today.

Google's algorithms are very good at getting you what you want instead of what is true.

Thus when a creationist looks for information on evolution, Google will only give him links from creationist web sites and avoid giving him any links that contradict his views. Sadly, Google is an engine for reinforcing wrong beliefs.

So if you believe that diabetes can be cured by rubbing jam-smeared cockroaches on your thighs, then guess what your Google search will tell you when you go to research the topic?

If you have no medical coverage, then perhaps Dr. Google is your only resource. Otherwise, you're probably better off with a doctor's advice.