| · Medicines for children
· Labelling
· Morphine sulphate
· Complementary medicine
· CPD
· Co-proxamol withdrawal
· The Council
· The profession
· The Journal
· Support staff
Letters to the Editor
|
Complementary medicine
Nelsonbach’s position clarified
From Ms K. Chapman
Edzard Ernst writes rightly of the need to avoid double standards in the
assessment of the value of complementary medicine (PJ, 5 February,
p153). However, his example concerning the Bach Flower Remedies
is misattributed and taken out of context.
The quote comes from the newsletter of the Dr Bach Centre, an independent
body whose role is to preserve and protect the heritage of Dr Edward Bach,
the discoverer of the Bach Flower Remedies, and not, as quoted, from Nelsonbach,
manufacturers of the Bach Original Flower Remedies. It is not inappropriate
for the Dr Bach Centre to declare, as it did, that it is not its role to
instigate research, or for it to speak from the experience of a track record
of 75 years of the safety and popularity of the products it supports.
As the manufacturer of the Bach Original Flower Remedies, Nelsonbach’s
own position on the matter is rightly different. Nelsonbach is committed
to playing its part in the drive to deliver a stronger evidence base for
the safety and efficacy of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
In the 21st century marketplace, a lack of supporting evidence can only
be a barrier to the development of the CAM sector. We are committed to
contributing to the debate to ensure the availability of evidence most
appropriate to the nature of CAM.
Karen Chapman
Director of External Relations
Nelsonbach |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal