A recent article in the news claims, “$2.5 billion spent, no alternative cures found” in reference to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). For the last ten years the NCCAM has been conducting research on a variety of treatments including acupuncture, energy and herbal medicine.The article states that the only positive findings were that acupuncture helps osteoarthritis of the knee and supports the use of ginger capsules for nausea related to chemotherapy.

It does not mention the studies showing that acupuncture can help nausea related to chemotherapy or that there are promising results in lab animals for prevention of pain in those with cancer. Although it points out the fact that Gingko biloba and Echinacea are no more effective than placebo for memory and treating the common cold, the article does not discuss the value of fish oil for treating elevated triglycerides and for the use in prevention of heart disease. Nor does it mention the possibility that grape seed extract may help in the treatment of some neurodegenerative diseases. It fails to mention that massage is an effective treatment for chronic neck pain, a very common condition.

Although many of the studies have not produced positive results, when studying complementary medicine, maybe it is time to look at the study models. Does it really make sense to use a placebo-controlled trial when looking at acupuncture and massage? I know from my own experience that acupuncture is different depending on who is administering it. Massage and chiropractics are similarly provider dependent when it comes to quality. As far as the study of herbal supplements, they might have consulted with a panel of botanical experts to find out what part of the botanicals to use for the studies. For Echinacea, they apparently did not use the correct part of the plant. For many of these products it is not just the part of the plant that is important but also how it is prepared. For some the best form to use is a tincture or a tea. For others a tab will do.

I don’t believe it is fair to call for the end of the NCCAM and their studies.What they are doing is finding ways to determine the benefits and (most importantly) the risks to complementary and alternative therapies that are widely used in our country and the world. I think that they may need to find better ways to study these therapies by using more creative study designs. To write off therapies that have been found effective for the world (some for over 3000 years!) is arrogant and ignorant in my opinion. In the scheme of things, ten years of study is a really small amount of time.The NCCAM is just getting started.Robin Miller