The CAM Sham

In a recent article in Newsweek, Jerry Adler reviews a book lambasting complementary and alternative medicine as people purporting miracle cures and selling snake oil. There are so many problems with the premise of this article, but perhaps the biggest problem with is their imprecision: consistantly failing to define what is alternative medicine. The same is true in Groopman's well written NYTimes book review of Anne Harrington's "The Cure Within." CAM is grouped into a monolith concept, and a take it or leave it stance (The Cure Within focuses more on " Mind-Body Medicine" than "CAM," another differentiation, with overlaps, that would need to be explored more fully.)

Each of the so called "CAM therapies" has it's own history, theories, and basic assumptions. To truely evaluate them, they much each be considered individually. Acupuncture, Chiropractic, Homeopathy, etc. do not nessesarily share the same theory and premise. I am an expert in Acupuncture, Acupressure, and Chinese herbal medicine. I know very little about any other CAM therapy. In my field, it gets even more complicated, when treatment and diagnosis are individualized, each physician has their own style and technique.

Not that I am downplaying research in CAM. It is an interesting and positive endevor. But, it needs to start with the correct assumptions and classifications and examine each therapy on it's own merit. One would not study the robotic surgery of a radical prostatectomy, and conclude that surgery for hip replacements do not work. The same must be done with CAM, and each method should be evaluated by researchers with a background and interest in that disease and therapy.

FDA challenges to Chinese herbal medicine research are large, and deserve a much more dedication.