The Times: Scientists pressure Prince over woo medicine

17 April 2008 · Comments Off

A guide to “alternative medicine” produced by Prince Charles’ Foundation for Integrated Health, Complementary Healthcare: A Guide, that has been produced with over Â£900,000 of taxpayer’s money, is being asked to be recalled as it is claimed that:

[T]hey both contain numerous misleading and inaccurate claims concerning the supposed benefits of alternative medicine… The nation cannot be served by promoting ineffective and sometimes dangerous alternative treatments.
Edzard Ernst, Professor of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter, letter to The Times

I did find this quote from a representative of the Foundation, Natasha Finlayson, to be quite telling:

We entirely reject the accusation that our online publication Complementary Healthcare: A Guide contains any misleading or inaccurate claims about the benefits of complementary therapies… The foundation does not promote complementary therapies.

However, if one takes time to read the guide as it appears online, one might be justified in determining that it does indeed promote woo medicine. For example, take this part of the guide that deals with homeopathy under What precautions should I take?:

Some homeopaths think that particular medical treatments or strong smelling substances, including certain aromatherapy oils or mint toothpaste, can affect homeopathic remedies.

What this promotes is the idea (keyword “think” in this case) that any bona fide medical treatment might prevent the efficacy of a homeopathic treatment, and I don’t see it being outwith the realms of possibility that a credulous person might therefore be led to think that the homeopathic preparation is in fact the most important facet of any treatment, which for some illnesses or diseases may indeed be quite dangerous.

What’s also disturbing is what is omitted from what should be the most helpful part of the page, especially when entitled What precautions should I take?. This section doesn’t mention any of the following:

that there is no evidence that homeopathy has any more efficacy than a placebo
that homeopathic remedies can be very expensive
that most homeopaths are not licensed medical practitioners

In fact, none of these items are mentioned at all, although there is a statement that ’some’ homeopaths are doctors, dentists and nurses, although with the caveat when they practice homeopathy it’s not always within the context of the NHS. (Although it does disturb me that they can do it within the NHS at all.)

I’m not even going to mention con artists.

Perhaps it should be pointed out that the Foundation’s web site’s research papers section appears to contain not quite as much research as one might expect for an organisation that is promoting health issues.

The Times: Prince of Wales’s guide to alternative medicine â€˜inaccurateâ€™

Tags: <evidence, homeopathy, medicine and healthcare, Prince Charles, The Times, UK, web, woo woo>