A Dutch View of the “Science” of CAM 1986-2003.

A Dutch View of the “Science” of CAM 1986-2003.

Eval Health Prof. 2009 Nov 18;

Authors: Renckens CN

Between 1986 and 2003, research efforts on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) were subsidized by the Dutch government. This led to 12 academic theses and a considerable number of papers in medical journals. In our review, we have summarized the results of this research, grouped by therapeutic category (that is, acupuncture, paranormal therapies, naturopathy, manual therapies, homeopathy and anthroposophical medicine.) Of the 12 theses, four were written in Dutch, three of which were not subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals, while the fourth, on enzyme therapy, led to a number of papers in Dutch medical journals. In three instances, mildly positive findings were reported: on the efficacy of manual therapies, the use of acupuncture analgesia in surgery, and an elimination diet against migraine and tension headaches. These positive conclusions can easily be explained by methodological shortcomings (e.g., not using credible placebo-control groups); in the other nine theses, the researchers themselves had drawn negative conclusions. The Dutch government ended its financial support for CAM research in 2006.

BOTTOM LINE: Unfortunate and parallel conclusion to that found in the USA.  However, as pointed out in my previous editorial on the same topic, the “science” of studing CAM is quite a bit more complex than meets the eye.  The truth is that natural substances are very complex and numerous components in any natural substance are active and synergistic.   Similarly, some of the physical studies on manipulation and/or pain control have somewhat subjective endpoints.  Hard to measure.  This all goes against the grain of how drug research is carried out in terms of one cause, one effect.  It is simply very difficult if not impossible to statistically power studies on such substances high enough, without literally studying the effect on hundreds of thousands or millions of people.  This is just not practical.  So, a better way to evaluate efficacy and plausibility remains elusive.  On the other hand, other articles on this site discuss how basic science studies and epigenetics may lead to the “right answer”, in due time.

PMID: 19926606 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]