SCIENCE OR MUMBO-JUMBO?

 

We've all see the claims - wonderful remedies to prevent cancer, boost libido, stop colds and flu, and prevent arthritis. The list is almost endless. But just how scientific are these claims? And how can the consumer or the media sift the science from the sham?  

  

  

BRENT MURPHY, B.PHARM (RHODES), MPS, EXPLAINS. 

Depending on the source of the information, articles in the media are often misleading - either giving credit to the herb's effectiveness where no credit is due, or, conversely, stating as fact that it has no benefits when this was merely someone's opinion or only applies under a specific set of circumstances.

The same applies to claims in advertisements. Ads that perpetuate false claims of effectiveness or state that a products has no side-effects, when it does, contribute to the spreading of misinformation.

Conflicting opinions
Conflicting opinions appear to change over time. One year Echinacea is effective. The next it isn't, then it is again. Kava kava's toxic, then it's not. St John's Wort works for depression, then it doesn't. If one looks closely at the scientific literature, you will see no contradiction. Let's look at two examples.

• In 2005, a study was published on Echinacea, which showed no immune system benefit. This is apparently in conflict with the many other studies that indicate Echinacea does have immune system benefits. It should be noted that the test subjects were all young students, in perfect health, with excellent immune systems. Giving an immune booster to such people will not have noticeable effects, as a cup that's already full cannot be made fuller by adding extra water. It's the same with the immune system. Stimulating an immune system that is already 100% optimised will make no difference. In studies using older people, with weakened immune systems, or in sick children, Echinacea has been shown to be highly effective at boosting the immune system. It's only when one studies the actual trial that one can pick up the nuances. Where there seems to be a contradiction, there is often no real contradiction at all.
• St John's Wort was at one point reported to be useless for severe depression. This is absolutely correct. However, this does not mean that St John's Wort should be reported as being useless for all types of depression, since clinically, there is a big difference between severe depression and mild to moderate depression. St John's Wort is indicated for the latter where studies have shown it to be highly effective. This is another example of an apparent paradox.

But where is the science?
There is a perception that complementary medicines (CAMS) are based on hearsay or anecdotal evidence and that they are not scientific. In most cases, this is a sad untruth because, not only is complementary based soundly in science, where there are full academic monographs in almost all herbs and supplements (see website http://www.naturaldatabase.com/), but such science is also unbiased. Research into complementary medicine is typically conducted by governments and universities and published no matter what the results. This is in conflict with privately-funded research, where research can be withheld from publication if negative, and thus can give a skewed impression of effectiveness.

Research into CAMS is freely available. A good website to see all published research from 1999 to the present can be found at Computer Access to Research on Dietary Supplements funded by the American Government (http://ods.ocd.nih.gov/Research/CARDS_Databse.aspx).

Another good scientific database (PubMed) going back to 1965 can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.entrez/query.fcgi) These publications are all in scientific medical speak, but highlight that there is copious research into complementary medicine.

Those interested in more user-friendly scientific information can try the following links:

• Medicine Plus Herbs and Supplements - National Library of Medicine, USA
• University of Maryland Alternative Medicine Faculty
• National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, USA.

What about the fraudsters?
In the current climate of poor regulations, there are a few charlatans out there. These companies profit from the desperately hopeful by making exaggerated claims of effectiveness, such as a substance showing possible benefit for the immune system suddenly becomes a cure for AIDS, or something that is an antioxidant is marketed as treating cancer. When these fraudulent and exaggerated claims are exposed, it gives the impression that natural and complementary medicines are based on quackery and mumbo-jumbo pseudo-science.

Here are some tips for identifying health fraudsters from the Food and Drug Administration in the USA (http://www.fda.gov/).

• Fraudsters cannot supply bona fida scientific literature to back up their claims, or they supply evidence of scientific effectiveness but only for doses far greater than the amounts found in their products.
• A product that ‘cures all' should be treated with circumspect.
• Anecdotal evidence is weak evidence. Personal testimonies are often not worth the paper they are written on, and are not evidence of effectiveness. Personal testimonies do not take into account the placebo effect.
• There are no ‘quick fixes'. CAMS are typically slow and restorative forms of medicine with some noticeable exceptions like ginseng for energy or aloe bitter for constipation. But quick fixes for difficult problems or chronic diseases should be viewed with suspicion.
• Weight-loss claims: this is the most hyped-up category with the most disappointing results. Weight-loss claims that sound miraculous should be viewed with extreme caution.
• Meaningless jargon: be aware that sometimes credibility is attempted by using meaningless phrases, such as Hunger Stimulation Point (HSP).
• Although complementary medicines are generally safe, this does not always mean there are no side-effects or that they can always be used by pregnant women or young children. Some products can have side effects, especially concentrated supplements or herbal extracts. If a product promises ‘a whole lot of good', without giving attention to side-effects, contra-indications or warnings, this may suggest a less than honest marketer.

 

Brent Murphy is a Director of Solal Technologies and specialist in the research of complementary medicines as well as Executive Committee Member of the HPA.