Mojo
19th November 2005, 06:27 AM
Knowing the credulous line TO has often taken towards CAM in the past, I was expecting this to be pretty much in favour of CAMs across the board.
However, as well as featuring (as RichardR (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?postid=1279965#post1279965) has pointed out) Ben Goldacre’s (http://www.badscience.net/?p=186) piece about homoeopathy, it also features an article about the provision of SCAM on the NHS, with a featured quotation reading: ’Complementary therapies are a mixed bag. Homeeopathy, for example, is a load of mumbo jumbo’ and finishing with the sentence But until better research and regulation comes into force, the bottom line seems to be: either it’s effective or taxpayers should not fund it.
On the other hand, it does have a nice big argument from popularity in there though: But CAM must be doing something right. Nearly 20 per cent of the population is estimated to have used some form of complementary medicine… It also has extensive quotations from a couple of people associated with Get Well UK (http://www.getwelluk.com/), which is an organisation aiming at getting GPs to refer their patients to CAM practitioners, and there’s an anecdote about someone addicted to antidepressants who was cured by acupuncture.
There’s also an amusing but not terribly informative piece in which a reporter went to a number of practitioners (a GP, a homoeopath, an acupuncturist, a herbalist and, er, the Scientology shop) complaining of a cat allergy. Basically, it takes the micky out of the SCAMsters. At the end of the description of each session he gives the cost, and whether it worked. Homoeopathy (£50) and herbalism (£45) were said to provide no beneficial effect, acupuncture (£45), he says, gave some immediate relief from sneezing, but only for two days, and the book the scientologists sold him (£6.95) didn’t work, “but at least there’s something to line the cat litter tray with.” The “hayfever tablets” prescribed by the GP worked, but the journalist feels the need to add “but need to be taken daily.” Surely this would be just as much a drawback of homoeopathic or herbal remedies and £45 for acupuncture every couple of days sounds a bit pricey…
The A-Z listing of therapies is also not as bad as I feared it would be. It does at least mention what evidence (or lack of evidence) there is for the efficacy of the therapies, although it’s rather more positive about reflexology, for example, than it ought to be. It also has a “crackpot’s corner” into which it’s stuck past life regression, crystal therapy, angel therapy, ear candling and urine therapy.
There is a very uncritical piece about TCM though, in fact pretty much the only negative point in it says that the remedies don’t taste nice.
On the whole, though, a cautious thumbs up. It’ll be interesting to see what shows up on the letters page over the next couple of weeks!
There's also an article about the demise of the Routemaster Bus. :(
However, as well as featuring (as RichardR (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?postid=1279965#post1279965) has pointed out) Ben Goldacre’s (http://www.badscience.net/?p=186) piece about homoeopathy, it also features an article about the provision of SCAM on the NHS, with a featured quotation reading: ’Complementary therapies are a mixed bag. Homeeopathy, for example, is a load of mumbo jumbo’ and finishing with the sentence But until better research and regulation comes into force, the bottom line seems to be: either it’s effective or taxpayers should not fund it.
On the other hand, it does have a nice big argument from popularity in there though: But CAM must be doing something right. Nearly 20 per cent of the population is estimated to have used some form of complementary medicine… It also has extensive quotations from a couple of people associated with Get Well UK (http://www.getwelluk.com/), which is an organisation aiming at getting GPs to refer their patients to CAM practitioners, and there’s an anecdote about someone addicted to antidepressants who was cured by acupuncture.
There’s also an amusing but not terribly informative piece in which a reporter went to a number of practitioners (a GP, a homoeopath, an acupuncturist, a herbalist and, er, the Scientology shop) complaining of a cat allergy. Basically, it takes the micky out of the SCAMsters. At the end of the description of each session he gives the cost, and whether it worked. Homoeopathy (£50) and herbalism (£45) were said to provide no beneficial effect, acupuncture (£45), he says, gave some immediate relief from sneezing, but only for two days, and the book the scientologists sold him (£6.95) didn’t work, “but at least there’s something to line the cat litter tray with.” The “hayfever tablets” prescribed by the GP worked, but the journalist feels the need to add “but need to be taken daily.” Surely this would be just as much a drawback of homoeopathic or herbal remedies and £45 for acupuncture every couple of days sounds a bit pricey…
The A-Z listing of therapies is also not as bad as I feared it would be. It does at least mention what evidence (or lack of evidence) there is for the efficacy of the therapies, although it’s rather more positive about reflexology, for example, than it ought to be. It also has a “crackpot’s corner” into which it’s stuck past life regression, crystal therapy, angel therapy, ear candling and urine therapy.
There is a very uncritical piece about TCM though, in fact pretty much the only negative point in it says that the remedies don’t taste nice.
On the whole, though, a cautious thumbs up. It’ll be interesting to see what shows up on the letters page over the next couple of weeks!
There's also an article about the demise of the Routemaster Bus. :(