Recent newspaper articles about ‘Friends of Science in Medicine’
You may have read recent newspaper articles about a group called ‘Friends of Science in Medicine’, a co-founder of which is Professor John Dwyer, who are lobbying to have natural medicine courses removed from Universities, and also for health funds to be prevented from offering rebates on natural medicine therapies. This is on the spurious grounds that natural medicine are lacking in evidence.
The following is a statement released by ATMS to the press today.
Professor Dwyer’s ignorance is on display again.
Once again, Professor Dwyer has displayed his ignorance in the field of Natural Medicine claiming that this form of Medicine is “pseudo science” in a recent article. There is a vast amount of peer reviewed medical literature which supports the efficacy of many natural medicine therapies.
It is disturbing that an eminent professor should comment on areas of science that he is not qualified to comment on. Professor Dwyer has qualifications in medicine however; has no qualifications in the area of natural medicine and his comments should be treated with caution because of this.
If quoted correctly, Professor Dwyer has also mischievously suggested that there are entire University courses on homoeopathy, reflexology, and aromatherapy. This is simply not correct. To suggest that Universities are awarding degrees in ‘pseudo science’ is not only incorrect, it is denigrating to our excellent Australian universities. There are also many things taught or practised under the name of mainstream ‘evidence based medicine’ which either have little scientific evidence behind them, or on close review have insufficient evidence.
Natural medicine enjoys 3 powerful streams of evidence:
1. The peer reviewed scientific evidence that strongly supports areas of natural medicine, which is why so many Universities are teaching this evidence based medicine
2. The thousands of years of use of natural medicine throughout the world
3. The ever expanding and growing popularity of natural medicine throughout Australia today
Natural medicine seeks to treat the cause of disease in the body and uses medicines with minimal side effects, which is why Australians are using it in droves.
Sandi Rogers
President
Australian Traditional-Medicine Society Ltd
If the scientific method was so good you think they’d have cures for all the chronic degenerative diseases that are currently on the increase – asthma, allergies, autism, ms, dementia, arthritis etc. I think the last thing medicine needs is more bureacratic rigours of the scientific method. Modern allopathic medicine treats symptoms only with no understanding of the underlying causes. Holistic medicine achieves good results where often conventional fails.
carole i believe there is a place for holistic medicines as you call it. However I also agree with professor Dwyers concerns. As a healthcare provider I strive to better understand the complexities of the human body. It is important to me that my clients get the best available treatments; and if there are none that I know of, I will look it up or refer on to those that would best know, those with the best evidence. Using chiropractic as an example – there is no evidence that spinal manipulations have any health benefits. Spinal manipulations have been studied extensively, the moderate improvements can not be attributed directly to spinal manipulation therapy. It is time the general public realised this. I don’t want my tax’s being spent on shame therapies!
Unfortunately, I think this whole push for scientific studies for remedies that have proven themselves over centuries, has more to do with eliminating competition to pharmaceutical products than any real science.
I myself have cured a whole heap of conditions with cellsalts, that would otherwise require pharmaceutical drugs. This type of remedy isn’t well known though and is rubbished relentlessly as being useless. I also saved myself a tonsilectomy by using chiropractic. There’s more politics involved than actual science, the way that medicine is steered is towards “safe and efficacious” pharmaceutical solutions, the alternatives are talked down, examples are ridiculed as quackery and the public just fall for it.
Carol. I don’t wish to rubbish chiropractic. But I personally having heard your accounts would not for one second consider risking serious complications that could be attributed to tonsillitis especially in a young child. As I’m sure you are very aware tonsillitis is not generally serious. But it would be grossly irresponsible to promote chiropractic as a treatment. I, for the life of me cannot understand why you would say such things, But you are entitled to your opinion, however as a scientist I would argue that you are not taking into account a multitude of other variables that could have saved you from surgery! Same goes for skin conditions. They come and go. To simply attribute the ingestion of your cells salts, in my view, is grossly misleading.
$ $ $.. the world is full of greedy pp who promotes ideas to suit their needs n wants. Sciences? it was and to some its still is the alternative. Y must we all agree on one idea? soon science might want to bang us doing yoga..qi gong..etc cos those r too alternative, who needs it when science only wants u to run.
Even though in my opinion what Professor Dwyer states is wrong I defend his right to humiliate himself as freedom of speech is important never the less in reality it only draws attention to the fact that Natural Medicine is hear to stay.
As a pharmacist, I understand Professor Dwyer’s concerns but it would appear to me that he has had little involvement with and knowledge of the vast therapeutic benefits of complementary & alternative medicines and therapies (CAM).Professor Dwyer has the right to express his opinions but I do not believe that he should impose them on either government policy, private medical insurance companies or the public -who are opting for integrative medicine in increasing numbers. Why does he seem to ignore the increasing momentum in this movement and try to destroy it rather than better understand it? Doctors will always have a diagnostic, referral and treatment role. They won’t be replaced, undermined, side-lined or make less money if they embrace integrative medicine. What is the problem with expanding their role to accomodate worldwide patient trends? Ignoring this, I believe,risks doctors becoming medical dinosaurs of a foregone era. Indeed, why should there be less knowledge about CAM rather than more? There is an Arabic expression that says, “We see properly with two eyes and clap with two hands”. Figuratively speaking, one presumably cannot see a whole picture squinting one eye closed nor work effectively and provide best service with one hand. I would urge Professor Dwyer to be more open to growing worldwide trends towards integrative medicine and use his influence to increase research in favour of integrative medicine. In this way, he could bring his brilliance in allopathic medicine to the table to promote the safe use and a greater undertanding of CAM which he’s unlikely to stamp out.
Sorry frida but I cannot agree with you.
The professor does have a right to influence policy, this is a democratic country. He does have the right to push for reforms regarding tax payer funded schemes. He’s concerns I see it as the community at large. It has been the role of the Academic for centuries.
Furthermore, the move towards traditional medicines has nothing to do with whether it works or not! The shift has happened because of failings within medical practice. People turned away in droves because doctors were not meeting their needs. So what happens when those you trust let you down you look down other avenues for the answers you seek. Traditional medicines, being less invasive and with plenty of time on their hands filled that role.
Do not for one minute think that this has gone unnoticed within the medical community, things are being put in place to remedy this, e.g longer consults in community practice etc better trained doctors (a holistic approach) etc etc… So things will improve!
However, I do agree that professor Dwyer is perhaps not well informed on the goings on in our clinics. But I don’t think he is to blame for this. In my years in ‘Tradional’, ‘Alternative’, ‘Complementary’ and now it seems there’s a push for the acceptance of the term ‘Natural’ medicines/therapies and with each trend the lines of what we do continue to get blurred. Honestly who really understands all this stuff? I am getting really confused… Are vitamins natural? Give they are made by chemists. Is aspirin and penicillin natural? I did two years of chemistry at Uni (organic and inorganic) and as far as I was concerned chemical reactions are natural! Is healing natural? What about when we assist or put another way interfere in the process is this natural?
CAM has frequently borrowed from the developments in science to justify it’s merits, which has seen ‘some’ CAM practioners moving to a more science evidence-based approach (me included). However this has made me seriously question the founding traditions of certain modalities. Are they still applicable? I think that rather than confuse and blur the issue further we need to look at what it is we do and how to best define ourselves and how we can contribute to this growing trend of Evidence-Based Healthcare. The arguments senior ATMS members chose to propagate just don’t cut it anymore!
Oh and please excuse my poor grammar, but my iPhone seems to know best what I want to say. It’s not always so helpful!
Thank you Sandy very much for your statement to the press.
I have copied and pasted a link for a reference to all the sceptics and a proof of our continued scientific evidence Support and Learning.
http://www.jeffreybland.com
http://www.twitter.com/JeffreyBlandPhD
http://www.youtube.com/user/synthesisbyj…
http://www.linkedin.com/company/synthesi…
I am an advocaat and strong believer of Dr. Jeffrey Bland and have seen him and his Dr. Colleagues work endless on research and proofing the facts, what we are applying today in our clinics.
Jeffrey Bland has come to Australia for many years to our yearly congresses where we are joined together with Medical Doctors. Please tell that the press it is not for us but for the people who call us Quakers and for those who need proof.
May be we can put together a list of Integrated Medical Research – and Names of prominent people like Kerry Bone etc, Jeffrey Bland, Dr Mel Sydney, Advocates where we get regular updated.
I think it is so important to make clear with evidence based proof that this Group of “Friends of Science” are clearly not speaking the truth. Doctors lie too -they are made from no other material than any other person… there are good once as well bad once amongst them – research before you believe. We need call for public awareness, that a Doctor title is great but should not cause people to run like sheep. 58 % of the tolls made me aware that there is still so much work to do out there for us. Public awareness of what we are capable of and why.
V.Kimmich. Perhaps you did not read Dwyers article. I looked at your links for Jeffrey Bland and associates, and his research is worthy of your praise but I saw nothing there for him in support of Chiropractic, homeopathy or aromatherapy. No body will deny the benefits of healthy eating and nutrition. If your agreement is about people being good or bad, this really is an argument about human nature and not best health practices.
I have read the statment from Professor Dwyer and he has not said anything that is not true! Why are you all so paranoid about getting your therapies tested?? If you are so sure they work and you are correct then you have nothing to worry about.
I support him because it is unfair that a student graduates from University and is called a quack because these courses include homeopathy, iridology and ‘energy medicine’. There are many wonderful things that work that are complementary and they are proven by science – let’s stay with them and test the others, so that we can all benefit.
Universities should not include disproven therapies – whether traditional or orthodox.
Thank you Melissa!
Naturally the “scientist” wishes to eliminate natural and non-pharmaceutically dependent medicine – that way there is no alternative to show up “mainstream medicine” to be so sadly lacking on the healing, cure and repair front, merely being a diagnostic tool to sell more and more pharmaceutical drugs.
The danger to mainsteam medicine is that so called “alternative” medicine heals and mainstream medicine does not. With no comparisons available they hope people will forget. The depopulation agenda stands little chance of success when more and more people are opting for alternatives.
Jane, ‘scientist’ do not wish to eliminate natural medicine. Your argument is flawed. Scientist strive to better understand the world. You will probably live in good health for a good 80 or 90 years thanks to the progress in science and medicine. Developments in science may even result in you living well into 100′s.
However, there are limits to our knowledge. And it is important to realise this Jane
SOME so called natural medicines may seem to work SOME of the time, whether by luck or coincidence. Personally I’d rather take drugs which have been tested over many years before being prescribed. I am amazed that it is possible to gain a degree in “natural medicine”. If advocates of natural therapies had their way I guess we’d have no better chance of surviving illness than the average person born 500 years ago.
Sandi. If I may just comment on your remarks that ‘natural medicine enjoys 3 powerful streams of evidence’.
1. Dwyers’ comments suggest that there is no evidence to warrant the teaching of Chiro, homeopathy, aromatherapy etc in our Universities is not a lie nor is it ignorance. If you think otherwise then you must produce this evidence. However you need to keep in mind that because studies have been carried out into these treatments does not make treatments valid. Not all studies are good studies not or studies are rigorous studies.
2. Because something is thousands of years old is not proof, nor evidence.
3. And just because something is popular does not make it valid.
.. it’s sad to see division where there should be none ..
the problem has nothing to do with science or natural therapies ..
the problem is all about certain groups or people claiming to be right, while ignoring everything else.
The medical system and the natural one, are the perfect match to work together. The medical system is “fighting” disease, natural therapy is support health.
It is simply not enough to take a drug, if someone continues there self-sabotaging lifestyle. Natural Therapy is all about lifestyle advice plus using natural means to improve health further.
Surely .. those 2 groups need to work together …
As long as hospitals are over crowded, we know that we need science as well as natural therapy and lifestyle advice.
Yes, you’re right – conventional and alternative should work together. The problem is though that the pharmaceutical cartel is always pushing for total control of medicine, and trying to eliminate alternative through any means it can.
Conventional doctors get de-licensed if they try to use alternative or nutritional remedies. The medical schools since around 1900 have been funded with rockefeller money, who had a vested interest in pharmaceuticals, the pharmaceutical companies are always trying to get more influence in any / all government bodies and institutions. Just a few years ago they forced the sacking of the PBAC committee in favour of members who were more open to pharmaceuticals. So its ok to talk about people trying to meet in the middle, but unfortunately medicine is run like a racket.
.. most Doctors these days, use Natural Therapy techniques, simply by advising their patients to lose weight or change their diet, or advice on folic acid for pregnancy .. etc.
All this is not the problem.
It is just when someone in a high profile position is using that power to generalize everything Natural as quackery. It’s not even logic anymore.
There are still more problems with the medical system than the natural one if it comes to side-effects, wouldn’t it be better Dr. Dwyer concentrates his effort in improving something about the medical system.
And sure, there are things wrong with the natural system, everything can be improved, and there are bad apples in every system as well.
Please give us some examples of doctors that have been “de-licensed” simply for the use of alternative or nutritional medicines. I see many around.
Alarmist, accusatorial and conspiracy based non-evidenced claims do nothing at all to further the cause of “alternative medicine” especially when those claims are not accompanied by any evidence of evidence of efficacy.
Please give us some examples of doctors that have been “de-licensed” simply for the use of alternative or nutritional medicines. I see many around.
Alarmist, accusatorial and conspiracy based non-evidenced claims do nothing at all to further the cause of “alternative medicine” especially when those claims are not accompanied by any evidence of evidence of efficacy.
Please show me the chronic illness condition due to the lack of a pharmaceutical medicine contrasted with the irrefutable fact that we are all biochemically individual and have differing biochemical needs from birth. (Roger. J. Williams. Ph.D) And with thirty six years of experience in Clinical & Applied nutrition allied with thirty years in Orthomolecular psychiatry a patient list of over 40,000 individuals I have no hesitation in claiming that at least 90% of my early knowledge came for Doctors of dentistry and not one iota from Doctors of medicine who are the third leading cause of death in our society.