דעתו של אונקולוג בריטי על הרפואה האלטרנטיבית

BMJ 2006;333:1129 25.11.2006 Personal views Shark cartilage in the water Jonathan Waxman, professor of oncology, Imperial College, London It is estimated that up to 80% of all patients with cancer take a complementary treatment OR follow a dietary programme to help treat their cancer. These treatments may often delay the institution of conventional therapy AND may result from pressure from family AND friends to try an alternative approach to the conventional. The NHS Directory of Complementary AND Alternative Practitioners lists 29 directories, which include "Flower Therapy" AND "Dowsing." Alternative Medicine is big business, with a market value in the UK alone of £250m in the year 2005. The current prediction is that sales will increase by 7% per annum. The rationale for the use of many of these approaches is obtuse—one might even be tempted to write misleading. It is difficult to provide any sort of objective rationale whatsoever for the sales of any of these products. Indeed the claims made by companies to support the sales of such products may be overtly AND malignly incorrect as described with some pathos in patients' websites. In many cases the agents that are for sale may be doctored by the addition of chemicals borrowed from the conventional pharmaceutical industry. The reason that these products are accessible to patients is that they are not subject to the testing of pharmaceuticals because they are classified as food supplements. Food supplements are required to be tested not for the effects that may be claimed for them but only for their purity. So why do patients take alternative medicines? Why is it that science is disregarded? How can it be that treatments that don't work are regarded as life saving? In my view it is because the complementary therapists offer something that we doctors do not offer, they offer hope, hope of cure. If you eat this, take that, rub with this, manipulate this bit of your cranium, avoid this, AND really believe this then we can promise you sincerely that you will be cured. Yes, we can cure you. AND there is such pressure on the patient who has failed to be cured by, for example, the shark cartilage, because sharks allegedly don't get cancer, OR the sheep sorrel, because sheep sorrel eats up morbid matter. The patient has failed, not the alternative therapy, AND the patient has let down the alternative practitioner AND disappointed his family who have encouraged his "treatment." The cost of this approach to the patient is seldom researched, but in one recent study was $345 per month. In addition to the complementary medicines that they consume, many of the patients will have changed their diets in order to cure their cancers. They will have become strictly vegan, AND believing that the cancers that they have result from changing our lifestyles from that of our prehistoric ancestors, will consume vast volumes of vitamins hoping to replicate a chimpanzee's diet. Of course, there is a convincing body of information that proves that there is a strong dietary basis to the development of cancer. However we also know that once cancer has been diagnosed no change in diet will lead to any improvement in cancer outcomes. In a recent review of 59 randomised trials of dietary manoeuvres in cancer no evidence was found that supported this approach. And why is it that patients change their diet? For some it is because these changes are empowering AND with that diet they will have taken back an element of control of a situation that is entirely out of their control. For others it is because of the pressure put on them by families, friends OR vested interest groups to "go organic." Just as complementary medicines are business driven, money must motivate, in part, the dietary specialists, who are fee for service. It all helps drive the profits of the UK retail sales of organic produce which amount to £1.2 billion annually. As time goes by it is the hope of the clinicians that the snake oil salesmen that peddle cures AND exploit the desperate will be tipped in the cobra filled dustbin of oblivion. It's time for that legislation to focus on a particularly vulnerable section of our society AND do something to limit the exploitation of our patients. Why not subject the alternative medicines industry to the level of scrutiny that defines pharmaceuticals? Reclassify these agents as drugs—for this is after all how they are marketed—and protect our patients from vile AND cynical exploitation whose intellectual basis, at best, might be viewed as delusional. In this context the current EU initiative to bring forward legislation on this matter is welcomed.

Alternative Medicine is big business, with a market value in the UK alone of £250m in the year 2005 זה בדיוק מה שמפריע לו. זה אוכל אותו, הוא מת מקנאה. זה כל הסיפור.

אם אנשים מוכנים להוציא מכספם על רפואה אלנטרנטיבית, ועוד בניגוד לדעתם של האונקולוגים המטפלים בהם , ולמרות השמועות שמפיצים האונקולוגים על השרלטנות של הרפואה הטבעית,ועל חוסר ה"מדעיות " שלה - אם למרות כל זאת עדיין השוק הזה גדל - סימן שהוא מספק את הסחורה.

Scottish homeopathic prescribing studied ABERDEEN, Scotland, Nov. 28 (UPI) -- A new survey suggests as many as 60 percent of Scottish doctors prescribe homeopathic OR herbal remedies to patients, including babies AND children. University of Aberdeen researchers analyzed prescribing data from 2003 AND 2004, covering 1.9 million Scottish patients in 323 practices. The researchers, among other things, discovered children under 12 months were most likely to be prescribed homeopathic OR herbal remedies. The top five homeopathic remedies were Arnica montana (for injury, bruising), Rhus toxicodendron (joint symptoms, headache), Cuprum metallicum (cramps, poor circulation) Pulsatilla (PMT, menopausal symptoms, breast feeding problems) AND Sepia (PMT, menopausal symptoms, fatigue). The five most prescribed herbal remedies were: Gentian (poor appetite), Cranberry (urinary tract infection), Digestodoron (indigestion, constipation), Evening primrose (PMT) AND Laxadoron (constipation). "Whatever the arguments, our study shows an apparent acceptance of homeopathic AND herbal medicine within primary care, including extensive use in children AND young babies," McLay said. "We believe that these findings underline the need for a critical review of this prescribing trend." Study co-author Dr. James McLay said the major problem with homeopathic preparations is the lack of scientific evidence they are effective. The study appears in the December issue of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. Copyright 2006 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.