Should We Discard Herbal Medicine - Unless Provided by Pharma?
An examination of three randomized trials involving individualized herbal remedies was sufficient for two researchers to suggest that herbal medicine should be discarded. Not those herbal extracts that are provided by pharmaceutical companies, to be sure, but those mixtures of individual herbs prepared by practitioners following Chinese, Indian or other herbal traditions. The study was reported in the UK press and is drawing many comments from readers, largely in favor of herbal and medical diversity.
The Daily Mail got its headline slightly wrong when saying Herb cures that 'do you more harm than good', after all, what was examined was not the safety of herbal remedies but their efficacy. The sideswipe on the safety of herbs seems no more than a gratuitous slur. The researchers' complaint is with "Individualised treatments, used in Chinese, Ayurvedic and Western herbal medicine" and with the fact that of the three trials they examined only one showed the herbal remedies to be superior to placebo. The Daily Mail gives away some of the agenda when reporting:"Britain is reviewing the laws on the regulation of tailored herbal treatments, but Dr Canter wants them banned, even at the risk of a backlash from Chinese or Indian communities."adding that
"In some countries doctors practise phytotherapy, which uses extracts from a single plant and closely follows the principles of pharmacology."
So phytotherapy, using "extracts from a single plant" that "closely follow the principles of pharmacology" are all right, while individual attention from a herbalist is outright dangerous. Presumably the researchers who came up with this "study" are practicing phytotherapy...
The Telegraph ( Herbal medicine 'risks harmful side-effects' ) and The Guardian ( Herbalists' cocktails may do more harm than good, say researchers ) carry similar stories calling for a ban on individualised herbal remedies. In The Guardian's article, we read:
"The UK drug regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA), has been looking at herbal medicine, and statutory regulation for herbalists is imminent. Other areas where changes may be made are in manufacturing and import licences."Call me biased, but could it be that the "study" involving a total of three research papers and a well-known antagonist of alternative medicine, Prof Edzard Ernst, has been thrown together in a great hurry for the express purpose of influencing the imminent new law (statutory regulation...) for the herbalist profession?
There are many interesting comments from readers on the newspapers' sites. One reader's letter and comment on the study that was sent to the papers carrying the story did not make it through to actual publication. It does however provide a glimpse of the interests that could be hiding behind this story ... perhaps it is all a question of money.
- - -
Thanks to Louise of Zeus Info Service for sharing this:
The following is the text of an emailed letter submitted today (6 October 2007) to the Daily Mail newspaper, London. Other emailed letters were sent to journalists in other papers who published similar stories.Feel free to circulate it.
Dear Sirs,Re: Herb cures that 'do you more harm than good' | Jenny Hope - Daily Mail - 4th October 2007
I write out of concern for what I read today in this story.
As a lawyer with a background as a trained scientist I have been directly involved with the drug industry in relation to herbal medicines. In my professional work I have met and dealt with medical and scientific professionals on different occasions who are involved in pharmaceutical research and the commercialisation of herbal, nutritional and other natural remedies and who recognise and in some cases are in awe at the efficacy of herbal medicines and the skills of herbalists.
The pharmaceutical industry have been trawling the world to snap up the secrets to numerous herbal, nutritional and other natural remedies in an attempt to turn them into conventional pill and bottled patented remedies. A notable example among many doing this is Phytopharm plc. And only yesterday in the Daily Mail is an example of one outcome "Anti-cancer pill made of wine, rice and berries".
At the same time as the pharmaceutical industry are doing that some elements attack traditional herbalists, nutritionalists and others. No one is going to pay large amounts of money for an expensive patented medicine when they can treat themselves, without the risk of serious side effects, with safe and effective plant based medicines proven over years, sometimes centuries, of use.
Even assuming the medical paper reported in your story is reliable (and that cannot be assumed about any medical paper) the suggestion that three randomised and very limited clinical trials (RCTs) about just three specific treatments tell us anything about the efficacy of "individualised herbal remedies" or herbal medicines in general is just not scientific. Yet these "experts" appear from the quotes in the media today, to be using that as an all-out attack on herbal medicines. This is precisely at the time the MHRA and the EU are considering regulation of herbal and other natural remedies.
Elsewhere today authors Dr Peter Canter and Professor Edzard Ernst from the Peninsula Medical School at the University of Exeter are quoted as calling for the sale of herbal medicines to be banned unless evidence of their efficacy can be shown.
This is just laughable when put into context. If conventional medical doctors had to stop using all the treatments they do unless proven by randomised clinical trial, medicine as we know it would shut down. So Ernst is pulling one over everyone by claiming that all herbal, nutritional and other natural remedies have to be proven by RCTs.
Professor Edzard Ernst of the very same Peninsula Medical School at the University of Exeter whose "scientists" were responsible for the paper also wrote an accompanying editorial to the paper. He claims his new field (dubbed "phytotherapy") is being confused with traditional herbal medicine and OTC remedies, which he claims "to date have no basis in science". He states "phytotherapy, which represents the scientific face of herbalism, has considerable potential to benefit patients".
As you can appreciate, that is a contradictory position for Ernst. The only reason he can create this new field of "phytotherapy" is because herbal, nutritional and other natural remedies are known to work even though they are not written up and reported in the medical literature.
It is farcical of the "researchers" to suggest that because no one has paid for formal research into herbal, nutritional and other natural remedies that there is no evidence of efficacy. There are large numbers of known and proven nutritional and other natural remedies which have not been formally researched and written up for publication in medical or scientific journals. No pharmaceutical company is going to fund research to prove a remedy anyone can knock up in their kitchen at minimal cost is safe and effective.
Drug companies control the evidence base in medical research. Two thirds of so-called "research" is funded by the drug industry. And the medical profession, with considerable drug company influence, has adopted a demonstrably nonsensical evidence base. This favours expensive published research which mainly only drug companies can afford to carry out. No one is carrying out needed research to demonstrate the efficacy of simple nutritional and other natural remedies on the scale needed. I am confident the NHS could save billions by investing in research into herbal, nutritional and other natural remedies to prove them safe and effective in the literature.
I have learnt enough to know there are many safe effective herbal, nutritional and other natural remedies which we are all being denied because of the power of the pharmaceutical industry in the promotion of medicines of sometimes dubious efficacy. And if you want proof of that, consider this. On 8th December 2003 Dr Allen Roses of GlaxoSmithKline was quoted by Science Editor Steve Connor of The Independent newspaper as saying at a scientific meeting in London where Dr Roses cited figures on how well different classes of drugs work in real patients:
"The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people," Dr Roses said. "I wouldn't say that most drugs don't work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don't work in everybody."
Connor’s story went on to say:-
“It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public. His comments come days after it emerged that the NHS drugs bill has soared by nearly 50 per cent in three years, rising by £2.3bn a year to an annual cost to the taxpayer of £7.2bn.”
Glaxo chief: Our drugs do not work on most patients By Steve Connor, Science Editor 08 December 2003
And then we need to look at the medical profession itself - with this example from the BMJ:
Why do doctors use treatments that do not work? Jenny Doust, Chris Del Mar, BMJ. 2004 February 28; 328(7438): 474–475.It is well-known in research circles not to rely on author's opinions and particularly not what appears in the discussion or conclusions sections. Regrettably, publicity seeking authors who might be chasing down their next research grant sometimes manage to get news coverage for their work by issuing news releases containing inflammatory quotes which they anticipate will get the attention of the media.
Whilst these "researchers" have failed to demonstrate that herbal, nutritional and other natural remedies are generally ineffective what they have done is demonstrated how lacking in science the opinions of authors or medical papers can be.
Sincerely,______________________________________
Clifford G. Miller,
50 Burnhill Road, Beckenham, Kent BR3 3LA
Tel: + 44 (0) 20 8663 0044
______________________________________
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Monday October 8 2007
updated on Wednesday August 15 2012URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2007/10/08/should_we_discard_herbal_medicine_unless_provided_by_pharma.htm
Related ArticlesWHO Issues Guidelines for Herbal Medicine: Press Exaggerates Warnings
The World Health Organization is engaged in a strategy of helping traditional medicine (TM) and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to emerge and gain recognition as a valid alternative to our pharmaceutically controlled western-style medical system. One of the steps in this WHO program is to develop a consumer information strategy. A report released by WHO in January 2004 - "Guidelines on Developing Consumer Information on Proper Use of Traditional,... [read more]
June 30, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerMedical system is leading cause of death and injury in US
Shocking statistical evidence is cited by Gary Null PhD, Caroly Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD and Dorothy Smith PhD in their recent paper Death by Medicine - October 2003, released by the Nutrition Institute of America. "A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good. The number of people having in-hospital,... [read more]
October 29, 2003 - Sepp HasslbergerHerbs Safer Than Pharmaceutical Medicines
Seven questions about herbal medicines from Hana, a student, who asked me whether I might consent to an interview. I did, and here are the questions and my answers. Hello Sepp, Here are my questions: 1. What advantages do you think herbal medicines have over traditional pharmaceutical medicines? 2. If herbs are natural, are they safe? 3. Many people say that herbal medicines are not safe because the FDA does... [read more]
March 25, 2005 - Sepp HasslbergerEuropean Directive on Medicinal Herbs Discriminates Against China, India, Other Cultures
On 31 March 2004, the European Union put the finishing touches on its directive for herbal medicinal products, which was published in the official journal and can be downloaded as a pdf here. The directive will have to be transformed into national law by the 25 EU member countries. It introduces a simplified registration for herbal medicinal products that have been on the market in Europe for at least 30... [read more]
July 19, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerEurope Relaxes Herbal Medicines Rule for Ayurvedic Herbs
The European Union "has relaxed its norms of 15-year usage criteria under the Herbal Medicinal Product Directive that posed technical barriers to Indian exporters of herbal products", according to a recent communication by the Asia-Pacific Traditional Medicine and Herbal Technology Network. The move follows a challenge to the new European herbal medicine rules by Indian authorities in August 2005: "In a letter to EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson India’s commerce... [read more]
February 10, 2007 - Sepp HasslbergerNew Zealand Coroners Investigation: Natural Medicines Safest Way To Health
Dr Wallace Bain, Acting Chair of the New Zealand Coroners' Council, has recently released a report of an investigation into deaths caused by natural health medicines in New Zealand. The New Zealand government has been pushing for greater control over natural medicines by way of legislation, to create a combined Australia New Zealand Therapeutics Products Authority but the report says that there are "no problems to be solved" by new... [read more]
October 13, 2006 - Sepp Hasslberger
