Evidence-based Medicine and Alternative Treatments
Year: 2002
Type: article
Abstract: As a member of several bioethics committees and the National Council Against Health Fraud, I read Rosenstock and Lee's article “Attacks on Science: The Risks to Evidence-Based Policy”1 with great interest. Not since before the original Pure Food and Drug Act has there been such a sustained disregard for evidence-based medical science by vested interests.
The increasing role of industry-sponsored research has resulted in the fast-tracking of incompletely researched medical products to the marketplace. This, in turn, has resulted in the eventual withdrawal of some of these products from the market when they proved to be unsafe. The Hatch–Richardson Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 has permitted the marketing of products exempt from review by the Food and Drug Administration. This has resulted in many substances' being marketed to the public for the treatment of various conditions even though there is no scientific evidence of their value. Therapeutic touch, homeopathy, acupuncture, and many other scientifically unproven treatment modalities are being promoted openly in our society.2
Our own American Journal of Public Health is planning a special issue on complementary and alternative medicine in October 2002. I trust that the editors will restrict its content to research that adheres to science and not just to anecdotal accounts of the allegedly successful use of alternative treatments.
The Journal's mission should be not only to “promote public health research, policy, practice and education” 3 but also to serve as a forum where public health scientists can evaluate the worth of products, treatments, and practices that have an impact on the health of the public.
Author: Melvin H. Kirschner
Language: English
Subfield: Complementary and alternative medicine
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2045543165