This article was co-written by Tineke Malus and Zee
Obama’s website has a format whereby citizens can submit their ideas for changes they would like to see in the federal government. Others can then sign in and agree or disagree with the proposed changes.
There is currently a popular idea posted there, that defunding research into ‘alternative’ medicine is a good idea, with the basic premise that medicine is either scientific, and funded through other NIH efforts, or it is quackery. There are many voices in support of this idea. Almost all of the research done at NCNM is funded through NCCAM. We would NOT benefit by this.
My hope with this message is that you will take a minute to sign into the site and vote DOWN the idea and perhaps spread this to others who believe that research is essential to the further evolution of natural medicine and better primary health care in this country. Thank you.
The ability to vote on this may end today, Sunday, January 18th. If you can log on today, it would be great. If not, please try to respond as soon as possible.
Thank you for your time and for being an active part of the change.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
I am really glad you pointed out this discussion on change.gov. I’m planning to start the CCM program at NCNM this coming fall, and from reading all the posts by the “quackwatch” types, I am starting to realize how much I am up against in choosing to practice “CAM” as a career.
Sure I knew there were plenty of people out there that didn’t believe in things like acupuncture and energy work, or believed it was solely the product of the placebo effect. But I guess I never realized there was also that much hostility coupled to that disbelief. For me, that hostility is very telling. If you had legitimate reasons for thinking it is a waste of resources to research a certain type of intervention, what could your argument possibly gain from lashing out against “snake-oil salesmen,” from belittling those who practice and seek CAM? I find this phenomenon extremely interesting.
As I begin my formal studies in Chinese medicine, I am looking forward to investigating deeply all the psychological, philosophical, political and sociological reasons that are leveled against CAM by this particularly vocal contingent of the conventional biomedical establishment. This will be crucial in clarifying my own understanding of the medicine I have chosen to study, and also, in the greater struggle to expand our concept of health, and our options for achieving it.
Zee, Jason, et al: you are confused in several ways. It is not a question of “believing” in CAM modalities. Most of these methods - acupuncture, homeopathy, “energy” healing, etc - have already been tested, multiple times. Study after study shows that they fail. Scientists reading the studies realize that these methods don’t work. CAM proponents like yourselves continue to “believe” and come up with rationalizations for why the studies failed to show an effect. But the scientific evidene is quite clear: these methods don’t work.
If you truly are interested in learning medicine, there’s a lot out there to learn, but “Chinese medicine” isn’t a category. There’s only one kind of medicine - the kind that works. If you want to treat people, you need to learn how to test treatments, and you also need to learn to reject methods that don’t work, instead of clinging to them.
I don’t quite understand why curiosity and scientific inquiry are acceptable in some scientific endeavors, but are considered a waste of money in others.
There are hundreds of scientists studying CAM, not because they “believe” it works, but because they want to know why some patients get better from CAM therapies. What I think is confusing the anti-CAM contingent is that the process of studying CAM is almost the complete opposite of the process of studying a drug or vaccine. With drugs and vaccines, scientific inquiry begins with basic, bench science and continues through a long array of Phase I, II, and III trials before finally coming to market with efficacy and safety issues fully addressed (or we would hope).
Most CAM therapies, on the other hand, have been used in medical practice first; some, like ayurveda or Chinese medicine, for thousands of years. In this case, we already have clinical indications that some patients feel better. We then have to work backwards to try to determine the mechanism, safety and efficacy of these therapies. Before being so quick to write off all CAM therapies based on the negative studies, it may behoove the naysayers to think about why these studies were negative. Could it be that some were designed based on a certain mechanistic theory that, in fact, isn’t correct? That still doesn’t mean that the therapy doesn’t work, it means that we have not figured out the correct way to study it. Yes, the negative CAM studies may truly indicate that a particular therapy doesn’t work. But it is equally plausible that, in the rush to study certain therapies in randomized, controlled trials before the proper amount of preliminary work has been done, the study design or mechanistic theory is what’s at fault, not the therapy itself. In that case, it would be foolish to prematurely declare that this line of inquiry is definitively closed.
I have a feeling you might write this off as simply another rationalization. However, developing reasons for why a study did not work isn’t the mark of a deluded “believer,” intent on proving something. Instead, finding rationalizations for why a study didn’t work is an exercise that every scientist worth his or her salt does regularly, usually in a discussion section of a paper. By finding out why something didn’t work, it gives us clues on how to create a more effective study design and allows us to develop our theories more fully.
So, should scientists who study CAM give up, simply because exclusionist members of the scientific community who have no experience in the CAM field proclaim that the book is closed and no other developments will come? How sad. There’s a whole world of potential discoveries out there, something that should excite the scientific community, not cause them to write missives against it.
The argument by science_one is weak. “Science” has proven that it doesn’t work- care to quote papers? For most science that I know is not so clear cut that in a sentence or two one can wipe out centuries of medical traditions and a myriad of cultures with a blanket statement that “science has proven that it does not work”. Science, as I understand it, strives to understand the truth. To embark on scientific inquiry one often begins with empirical observations: what has been used by people for particular conditions, what have been the results, etc.
The better question is to ask if centuries of use and success in treating medical ailments to allow us to have survived as a race warrants the new found dominance of “modern science” which is often reductionistic and is heavily infused with moneys from the pharmaceutical industry. If CAM was given more money and support, more data would be generated to clarify the case for or against it.
Another question to ask is if CAM doesn’t work, why do people go to such great lengths to seek it out? Because this in itself is alarming when the dominant health care system is losing its ground as the main provider of primary care (statistics of Eisenberg’s study show the high prevalence of use and large sums of money going to CAM- not conventional care).
So the issue is much more complex than science_one cares to admit. It is complicated by so many political, socioeconomic and demographic issues that we ought to tread lightly on this ground- no matter whether we are “scientists” and “M.D.’s” or CAM providers and researchers.
May CAM be given a just and thorough trial before it is cast out of court. And whatever the verdict, CAM care will continue to exist and even prosper- because countless articles have shown that the public wants it. So on that alone, scientists, funded by taxpayer dollars, have a responsibility to ensure that the care is as well-tested and is as safely and intelligently coordinated as is possible.