Subscribe now

Letter: Hard facts

Published 23 May 1998

From Melanie Oxley

Edzard Ernst is right to point to lack of funding and expertise as the main
obstacles to progress in research into complementary/alternative medicine (CAM)
(Forum, 18 April, p 49).
He is equally right to state that “evidence-based CAM
must not remain a contradiction in terms”. However, he has been saying this for
a long time and has still not come up with solutions. Surely his own department
at the Postgraduate Medical School in Exeter has the expertise necessary to
conduct clinical trials into CAM. It is also in a position to attract funds,
unlike the CAM organisations.

Ernst must stop lumping all CAM therapies together. Each is at its own stage
of evolution. Let’s have a therapy-by-therapy investigation, starting with those
that are most sought by patients—namely homeopathy and
acupuncture—that still fall outside government regulation.

The allegation that until CAM is proved safe, it must be considered unsafe,
is not sustainable. And how about testing the safety of many conventional drugs,
the damage from which many CAM practitioners are regularly asked to treat? We
urgently need to move away from arrogant positions on CAM, and combine our
resources in some exciting research.

Alresford, Hampshire

Issue no. 2135 published 23 May 1998

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox. We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers.

Sign up
Piano Exit Overlay Banner Mobile Piano Exit Overlay Banner Desktop