We have exhausted the national press in
an attempt to rebutt the Daily Mail article of 14th Dec which, with the help
of Prof Ernst, again slammed complementary medicine (Zeus note: see second
press release at end re. 'Complementary medicines are
useless and dangerous, says Britain's foremost expert')
We were told that the national press won't publish an article that opposes a purported leading expert, such as Professor Ernst.
Please help us to get the word out! The
article can be downloaded in full, complete with one of Emma Holister's
cartoons, at the following link:
http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/_docs/ANHwebsiteDoc_262.pdf
Please email this link to anyone you think might
be interested!
Who’s confused about
alternative medicine?
By Robert Verkerk MSc DIC PhD, executive & scientific director, Alliance for
Natural Health (www.anhcampaign.org)
PROFESSOR EDZARD ERNST, the UK’s first professor of complementary medicine,
gets lots of exposure for his often overtly negative views on complementary
medicine. He’s become the media’s favourite resource for a view on this
controversial subject. Yesterday’s report by Barbara Rowlands in the Daily
Mail (Complementary medicines are useless and dangerous, says Britain’s
foremost expert, 12 December 2006) is par for the course.
The interesting thing about Prof Ernst is that he seems to have come a long
way from his humble beginnings as a recipient of the therapies that he now
seems so critical of. Profiled by Geoff Watts in the British Medical
Journal, the Prof tells us: ‘Our family doctor in the little village outside
Munich where I grew up was a homoeopath. My mother swore by it. As a kid I
was treated homoeopathically. So this kind of medicine just came naturally.
Even during my studies I pursued other things like massage therapy and
acupuncture….As a young doctor I had an appointment in a homoeopathic
hospital, and I was very impressed with its success rate. My boss told me
that much of this success came from discontinuing mainstream medication.
This made a big impression on me.’ (BMJ Career Focus 2003; 327:166;
doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7425.s166).
Here we see Ernst responding as a clinician working in the field of
alternative medicine – and also as a consumer, like the millions of Daily
Mail readers who have remained passionate about this form of healthcare. The
question is: why is there so much controversy over these non-pharmaceutical
therapies? Why is it that users keep coming back to food supplements, herbal
remedies, homoeopathy and all the therapies medics refer to as
“complementary”, while a relatively small group of doctors attack such
therapies as if they were some form of illicit witchcraft?
The answer may lie in the cloudy world of the scientific method, which is
perhaps not as objective as many of the alternative medicine sceptics might
claim. Being a skeptic (let us not forget that Ernst gave the keynote
address to the 11th European Skeptics Congress on September 5–7, 2003) might
suggest less than an open mind. The divergence in views might also have
something to do with the variable and often positive experiences of users of
these therapies.
After his early support for homoeopathy, Professor Ernst has now become, de
facto, one of its main opponents. Robin McKie, science editor for The
Observer (December 18, 2005) reported Ernst as saying, ‘Homeopathic remedies
don't work. Study after study has shown it is simply the purest form of
placebo. You may as well take a glass of water than a homeopathic medicine.'
Ernst, having done the proverbial 180 degree turn, has decided to stand
firmly shoulder to shoulder with a number of other leading assailants of
non-pharmaceutical therapies, such as Professors Michael Baum and Jonathan
Waxman. On 22 May 2006, Baum and twelve other mainly retired surgeons,
including Ernst himself, bandied together and co-signed an open letter,
published in The Times, which condemned the NHS decision to include
increasing numbers of complementary therapies.
Six months on, Professor Waxman, in an article in the British Medical
Journal (BMJ), said on 24 November 2006 that he wanted peddlers of food
supplements consigned to “the cobra filled dustbin of oblivion”. I have to
say, I’m not sure that such an attitude towards human life is particularly
compliant with the Hippocratic Oath, but Professor Waxman has made it clear
he feels very strongly about this issue. In the BMJ’s Rapid Responses to the
same article, my colleague Dr Damien Downing and my responses reminded
Waxman that orthodox medicine was not well known for its spectacular
curative properties. We cited, by example, a recent study of the
effectiveness of chemotherapy in Australia and the USA which showed it
contributed less than 5% to the 5-year survival rate (Clin Oncol (R Coll
Radiol) 2004; 16(8): 549-60).
As high profile as the Ernsts, Baums and Waxmans of this world might be –
their views are not unanimous across the orthodox medical profession. Some
of these contrary views were expressed just last Sunday in The Sunday Times
(Lost in the cancer maze, 10 December 2006). The author of the article,
Robert Randall, is a cancer sufferer himself. He claims to be a consumer of
services offered by both sides of the divide and it is interesting that from
this consumer’s perspective, we receive a much more balanced debate.
The concept of orthodox medicine relying on the evidence-based gold standard
of the randomized controlled trial (RCT) is now wearing thin when it comes
to understanding the relevance of this methodology to many forms of
alternative medicine. Let's take nutrition, for example. Is it really
scientifically valid to condemn the potential role of supplementary
nutrients like vitamin E and carotenoids (from carrots, peppers and other
brightly coloured fruits and vegetables) because, when delivered in their
synthetic, pharmaceutical forms, they have failed to generate strong
beneficial effects in RCTs aiming to investigate their role in reducing
chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease? Is it fair to do this when
copious evidence from epidemiological and observational studies – which are
often less prejudiced by bias and confounding factors – have consistently
demonstrated strong associations for the natural, dietary forms of these
nutrients? I think not – and, as a scientist, I am far from alone.
Natural products work within the human body in a different manner to
pharmacologically-active drugs. They often work as complex mixtures in which
the components interact with each other synergistically, or they interact
with factors in the diet or the body. These sorts of variables are omitted
from the pharma-friendly gold standard that Ernst and his colleagues seem to
worship. I have no issue with using the evidence base – but I have a big
problem with how selective you are being when you view the available
evidence.
The real loser in open battles between warring factions in healthcare could
be the consumer. Imagine how schizophrenic you could become after reading
any one of the many newspapers that contains both pro-natural therapy
articles and stinging attacks like that found in this week’s Daily Mail.
But then again, we may misjudge the consumer who is well known for his or
her ability to vote with the feet – regardless. The consumer, just like
Robert Sandall, and the millions around the world who continue to indulge in
complementary therapies, will ultimately make choices that work for them.
‘Survival of the fittest’ could provide an explanation for why hostile
attacks from the orthodox medical community, the media and over-zealous
regulators have not dented the steady increase in the popularity of
alternative medicine.
Although we live in a technocratic age where we’ve handed so much decision
making to the specialists, perhaps this is one area where the might of the
individual will reign. Maybe the disillusionment many feel for
pharmaceutically-biased healthcare is beginning to kick in…. Perhaps the
dictates from the white coats will be overruled by the ever-powerful
survival instinct and our need to stay in touch with nature, from which
we’ve evolved.
Dr Robert Verkerk, Alliance for Natural Health,
info@anhcampaign.org
Acknowledgment – We’d like to thank Emma Holister for providing the cartoon
for this article.
Date: 14-Dec-06
It beggars belief that the UK's "first professor in complementary medicine" can be so opposed to this form of healthcare...
If you want to make a comment direct to the Daily Mail - please click here.
The Daily Mail article reads as follows:
Complementary
medicines are useless and dangerous, says Britain's foremost expert
By BARBARA ROWLANDS
About the Alliance for
Natural Health
The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) is a UK-based, EU-focused,
international, legal-scientific, non-governmental organisation that is
working on behalf of consumers, medical doctors, complementary health
practitioners and food manufacturers and distributors, to protect and
promote natural healthcare, using the principles of good science and good
law.
The ANH’s principal objective is to help develop an appropriate legal and scientific framework and environment for the development of sustainable approaches to healthcare. Within this setting, consumers and health professionals should be able to make informed choices about a wide range of health options, and in particular those that relate to diet, lifestyle and non-drug-based or natural therapies, so that they may experience their benefits to the full while not exposing themselves to unnecessary risks.
The Alliance for Natural Health, The Atrium,
Dorking, Surrey RH4 1XA, United Kingdom
tel +44 (0)1306 646 600, e-mail info@anhcampaign.org
The ANH is a not-for-profit campaign organisation that operates solely on donations. If you care about the future of natural health and would like to support our work, please make a cheque payable (in any currency) to ‘Alliance for Natural Health’ and send to the above address, or donate via our secure server either to our general fund at www.anhcampaign.org or to specific projects at www.anhfund.org. Thank you.