Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 3 November 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a2389
Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a2389
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Complementary medicine is rightly criticised for the unprincipled actions of some therapists,1 2 which unfairly taint the many more scrupulous practitioners. However, my recent report to the Australian government indicated that complementary therapists are overwhelmingly in favour of greater regulation and tighter restrictions.3 They also want more collaboration with evidence based medicine and more research, not less, but they want to be consulted and involved in this process.
The complementary medicine industry argues that many evaluation techniques do not accurately represent clinical practice,4 while the scientific community argues that these medicines need to be evaluated like any other. Both arguments are valid.
Much of the research performed by those with intimate knowledge of the therapies lacks scientific rigour, but much of the research performed by experienced researchers may not accurately evaluate the treatments because of lack of knowledge. A good example is echinacea. Professional herbal texts do not recommend its use
Jon L Wardle, research scholar1
1 School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia
j.wardle@sph.uq.edu.au
Read all Rapid Responses