| · Compliance aids
· CAM (2)
· Public health campaigns
· Animal derived products
· The Society
Letters to the Editor
|
Complementary and alternative medicine
A list of effective medicines is needed
From Mr R. Sturgess, MRPharmS
Robert Woodward,
in somewhat intemperate terms, objects to complementary and alternative
medicine being subjected to evidence-based proof of efficacy
and takes Edzard Ernst and his colleagues to task for backing this course
(PJ,
7 January, p12). Professor Ernst in the same issue, having the evidence
on his side, is able to argue his case more moderately. Their views illustrate
the divide that exists. CAM is above science, say its devotees. Scientists
ask for proof of efficacy.
The question for the pharmacy profession is clear. Do we embrace science
or well-meaning fringe therapies? There can only be one answer. Pharmacy
is either science-based or nothing.
That need not preclude individual pharmacists who think, along with the
majority of the general public, that CAM has something to offer, from
involving themselves with alternative therapies. But they should do so
in their own time and not on registered premises.
As I have proposed (PJ, 14 May 2005, p590–2 PDF (100K)),
the best solution to the problem would be for the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society,
in conjunction
with Professor Ernst’s department, to draw up a list of complementary
medicines, proven to be effective in clinical trials, and have pharmacies
supply only these.
Ray Sturgess
Knaresborough, North Yorkshire
Setting things straight
From Mr N. Ross
In his letter, Robert
Woodward (PJ, 7 January, p12) complains that: “the
CAM [complementary and alternative medicines] industry and profession are
no match for big pharmaceutical companies and modern medicine,” and
that, “strict judgement of CAM by the criteria designed for modern
drugs and medical interventions can never succeed.”
These are striking admissions. The global CAM industry is worth billions
so, if it is “no match” for the pharmaceutical companies, this
is not due to a lack of resources; and look at how many biotechnology firms
have sprung up to compete with the traditional drug industry. Perhaps firms
like Dr Woodward’s are too comfortable making money or too intellectually
complacent to bother with original research. Or is Dr Woodward conceding
that even if they did test their products properly most would fail? He
also says some odd things about those who criticise his scientifically
weak approach.
On one matter I ought to set the record straight. It concerns HealthWatch,
a charity that promotes truth and good evidence in all medicine, whether
labelled “conventional” or CAM. Dr Woodward writes: “Not
long ago the organisation HealthWatch used the word ‘fraud’ in
one of its publications in connection with CAM and, rightly, heavy libel
damages had to be paid.” In fact, although he does not say so, the
case featured Dr Woodward himself (his company was fined for making unsubstantiated
claims) and, although he asserts it was “not long ago”, it
was way back in 1992. Moreover, it is not true that “heavy libel
damages” were paid. We (rightly) apologised for incautious wording
of a report. So far as I recall no libel damages were sought or paid.
Nick Ross
President
HealthWatch
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal