This is an extract from our Health Check email newsletter. to receive it for free in your inbox every month
I HAVE a confession to make. For most of my life, I have been sceptical about the merits of alternative and complementary medicines. But when I experienced an unpleasant condition in my 30s that couldn鈥檛 be helped by conventional medicine, I ran straight to my local alternative health store.
I was seeking relief from unrelenting morning sickness. The remedies I tried 鈥� ginger supplements and wearing an acupressure wristband 鈥� had no effect. But the experience gave me a better understanding of why people with debilitating health conditions can get so desperate that they try anything.
Advertisement
I was reminded of this by the dispute that erupted last month when the World Health Organization (WHO) held its first global summit on traditional and complementary medicines, encompassing practices with long histories, such as Indian Ayurvedic medicine, and more recent Western inventions, such as homeopathy. The WHO is aiming to help countries integrate such therapies into their health systems.
I realise some readers may use these therapies and it really isn鈥檛 my intention to criticise, not least because it would be hypocritical given my history. But the WHO鈥檚 move has stirred up controversy. For instance, alternative medicine critic Edzard Ernst said on his blog that the conference was an 鈥渙dd and potentially disastrous鈥� move.
When it comes to complementary medicine, I share the views of , which has said that people have the right to use whatever remedies they choose, but they should be able to make fully informed decisions that are based on genuine evidence about the risks and benefits of any therapy.
The problem is that those who profit from complementary medicines generally haven鈥檛 carried out the research to provide such evidence. It is often argued that even if there isn鈥檛 evidence for benefit, most complementary and traditional medicines are generally safe, but that isn鈥檛 always correct.
A case in point is Ayurvedic medicine, which is very relevant here because the WHO conference was held in Gandhinagar, India, and was co-hosted by the Indian government. Last year, India committed an estimated $250 million to help the WHO set up its Global Centre for Traditional Medicine in the country.
Ayurveda is a collection of practices, including various dietary or exercise regimes, as well as the provision of remedies and supplements based on herbs, metallic compounds or sometimes gems.
The US National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health 鈥� generally very pro alternative medicine 鈥� says that some of the remedies and supplements can contain toxic levels of lead, mercury or arsenic.
Other kinds of complementary medicines also have potential for harm. Ernst has published a of people who died following complementary therapies. This included people who died from infection or from a punctured heart or liver after acupuncture, as well as people who died after chiropractic treatment, usually due to the alleged rupture of an artery in the neck during spine manipulation.
Complementary medicine can also do harm if people rely on these kinds of therapies instead of regular medicine. There are frequent reports of people dying from cancer who might have survived if they had conventional treatments, such as surgery and chemotherapy.
Complementary medicine advocates sometimes respond to these criticisms by saying 鈥渟cience doesn鈥檛 know everything鈥� 鈥� something I would agree with. I spend a lot of my time writing about the way that scientists, when faced with new evidence, have had to revise their beliefs about the way a drug works or whether it works at all.
Science has, however, come up with the best method we have for determining if a therapy has benefits over and above the placebo effect, known as the placebo-controlled trial 鈥� and that is what is often lacking when it comes to alternative medicines.
A WHO spokesperson told me its initiative in this area is needed because billions of people use traditional and complementary medicines, and that the WHO is committed to developing the scientific base to support the use of such therapies, to establish what works and what doesn鈥檛.
That would be welcome, but the WHO鈥檚 messaging so far doesn鈥檛 inspire confidence that this will be done in an appropriately impartial way.
I think we should remain open to the possibility that future trials may provide new evidence to support treatments currently classed as complementary. But until that happens, I will remain in my former position as a committed sceptic.
Clare鈥檚 week
What I鈥檓 reading
Our Missing Hearts by Celeste Ng, which is more unsettling than Ng鈥檚 previous novels, imagining a dystopian near-future US.
What I鈥檓 watching
I have belatedly discovered Deadloch, a playful crime parody that spoofs every cop show ever written, but still makes you care about whodunnit.
What I鈥檓 working on
I鈥檓 writing about the neuroscience of free will, which is disturbing, to put it mildly.
Clare Wilson is a reporter at听New 杏吧原创. She writes New 杏吧原创鈥檚 weekly email newsletter Health Check, about the latest health, diet听and fitness news.
听
