Edzard Ernst on alternative medicine
- Published: 25 June 2008 09:00
- Author: Edzard Ernst
- More by this Author
- Last Updated: 25 June 2008 09:00
- Reader Responses
People must not confuse the perceived benefits of so-called alternative medicine with the medical facts. Claims made about such treatments should be more tightly regulated to protect patients from unscrupulous practitioners.
Consider an intervention that is biologically implausible, demonstrably ineffective, yet hugely popular with patients/consumers. You may think such a therapy does not exist, but in "alternative" medicine there is no shortage. So, why do people spend their money on such therapies?
The currently accepted wisdom has it that the reasons for trying alternative medicine are a complex mix of factors including philosophical congruence, a desire to take control over one's health, desperation, rejection of science, disappointment with conventional healthcare and so on. But are these not red herrings? I suggest the true reasons are much more obvious.
"Several million websites exist on alternative medicine, and the vast majority provide information that is factually wrong or dangerously misleading"
No-one would seriously consider paying for an ineffective medical treatment unless they were unaware of the facts. It follows, I think, that misinformation is at the heart of initiating the decision-making process and the above-named reasons are secondary factors in that decision.
Misinformation troubles
Many experts have pointed out how much misleading information exists in the realm of alternative medicine and how scarce reliable information is. Several million websites exist on the subject, and the vast majority provide information that is factually wrong or dangerously misleading.
"But people are not stupid" is the stereotypical response of providers of alternative medicine. True enough, consumers trying alternative therapies tend to be well educated and often perceive these treatments to be effective. Perception must, however, not be equated with fact.
The impression that a treatment is effective can be due to a wide range of factors. For instance, symptoms could have improved on their own, another treatment may have been administered at the same time, the placebo-effect could have done its share, or the therapist may have been kind and caring.
Pernicious information
This is what makes misleading information about alternative medicine so pernicious. Untruths can easily masquerade as truths with the apparent support of personal experience.
People are not stupid, I agree, but many are easily misled, particularly if confused by clever marketing techniques.
Misinformation can be expensive and can even cost lives. The Department of Health told the House of Lords inquiry: "We believe that it is very important that consumers have access to adequate and appropriate information". Yet only months later, the DH sponsored a patient guide that is, in my opinion, overtly promotional, uninformative and misleading about many disproven alternative therapies.
Lip service is clearly not good enough. What we need is action to protect patients from unscrupulous practitioners.
