Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies
www.pharmpress.com/fact
Focus Alternat Complement Ther©2005 Pharmaceutical Press
Focus Altern Complement Ther 2008; 13: 1–2
Edzard Ernst
I do not know how I managed almost 15 years in fulltime CAM research without ever visiting one — but somehow I did. I am, of course, speaking of a ‘healthcare show’. But recently I was asked to give a lecture at ‘CAMEXPO, The Complementary, Natural & Integrated Healthcare Show’. I believe one has to try most things at least once, so I accepted the invitation. I had little idea of what to expect — perhaps a large conference with a sizeable trade exhibition, I thought. Looking at the brochure, it all seemed quite serious, not least because there was a full programme of more than 50 workshops. Some of these looked rational while others, for instance Patrick Holford’s ‘Six Steps to Superhealth’, seemed a little far out.
Being a novice to healthcare shows, I was utterly surprised by what I saw on the day. The entire event was oozing commercialism. There were many books for sale aimed at teaching CAM practitioners to maximise their income. Professor Goddard even gave a seminar on ‘Growing Your Holistic Business’. For many years I had been committed to the CAM practitioners’ pet belief that ‘Big Pharma’ is only out to make big money, regardless of the truth. Therefore this level of money-orientation at a CAM event baffled me.
Walking around the 150 or so stalls, I had another, even greater surprise. I know, of course, that there is reasonably good evidence for a lot of CAM products — after all, in FACT? we regularly report on it. So I expected to see mainly those on offer. But the vast majority of the gadgets, medicines, books, etc. seemed to be everything but evidence-based. In fact, one had to look long and hard to find anything associated with evidence at all. When I asked whether this was perhaps unusual, I was told that this show was much like the many others that take place all over the world.
Here is a small selection of products that impressed me as being outstanding examples of hocus-pocus:
Perhaps the most disturbing stand, I thought, was the one promoting Q-Link. This is a pendant that you wear to feel energized; it also ‘protects you from the effects of electromagnetic radiation from mobiles and computers and increases your blood oxygen’. The brochure quotes from several studies, although I am unable to find them in the usual databases. Deepak Chopra is quoted, stating that ‘The data is sufficient and strong enough for me to wear Q-Link, and I must say I feel invigorated wearing it.’ The pamphlet vaguely depicts some kind of uncontrolled experiment that ‘reduced the effects of active mobile phones on brain wave activity’. This apparently impressed Kim A Jobst, who is quoted as saying ‘This study is fascinating and may have profound implications … it deserves to be taken seriously.’ This, I believe, typifies the most unfortunate lack of distinction between uncritical commercialism and scientific evidence that seemed to be the hallmark of the show.
I realise, of course, that there is a difference between a trade show and a scientific conference. But even a trade show has to be based on reality. One does not perhaps go to a boat show expecting lectures on recent developments in solar-powered ship engines; but one does expect to see boats that float. Healthcare gadgets that do not demonstrably work are not health care, they are just trickery, and medicines that do not work are at best a rip-off.
My conclusions are simple: yes, one should perhaps try everything once, but there are exceptions. Unless healthcare shows stop being evidence-free zones, they certainly will not be my scene. They bring the respectable sections of CAM into disrepute those who pay for visiting them deserve better.
