Jon L Wardle states that I have “previously suggested that those
involved in complementary medicine should not evaluate it” [1]. Readers
might have noticed that there is no reference to back up this statement.
The reason is simple: there is none. What I do, however, often state and
firmly believe is the following: in order to do meaningful research in
this area, it is advisable to be first a researcher and second a CAM
practitioner. This is a lesson I had to learn the hard way during the last
15 years observing that things go badly wrong if CAM practitioners use the
tools of science to prove the effectiveness of their pet therapy. Science
is best used for testing, not for proving.
1) Wardle J.L. Involve complementary medicine practitioners in
research. BMJ 2008;337:1069-1070.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests:
No competing interests
08 November 2008
Edzard Ernst
Director of Complementary Medicine
Peninsula Medical School, Univerisities of Exeter & Plymouth, 25 Victoria Park Road, Exeter, EX2 4NT
Rapid Response:
A ludicrous suggestion
Jon L Wardle states that I have “previously suggested that those
involved in complementary medicine should not evaluate it” [1]. Readers
might have noticed that there is no reference to back up this statement.
The reason is simple: there is none. What I do, however, often state and
firmly believe is the following: in order to do meaningful research in
this area, it is advisable to be first a researcher and second a CAM
practitioner. This is a lesson I had to learn the hard way during the last
15 years observing that things go badly wrong if CAM practitioners use the
tools of science to prove the effectiveness of their pet therapy. Science
is best used for testing, not for proving.
1) Wardle J.L. Involve complementary medicine practitioners in
research. BMJ 2008;337:1069-1070.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests