Academics and NHS Alliance clash over complementary medicine

24 Feb 09

By Nigel Praities

The NHS Alliance has been embroiled in a furious row over its stance on complementary medicines, after being attacked by leading academics for giving out ‘misleading information’.

A strongly worded letter sent to Pulse by Professor Edzard Ernst claimed the NHS Alliance was potentially breaching GMC guidance by making ‘misleading or incorrect’ statements on complementary medicines.

Dr Michael Dixon, chair of the NHS Alliance, strongly rejected the claims. He said they were part of a concerted campaign to force him out of his post at the alliance and also to discredit his work as medical director of the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health.

Professor Edzard Ernst: NHS Alliance guilty of putting out misleading information on complementary medicine

Professor Ernst’s three-page letter – described as ‘graceless and predictable’ by Dr Dixon – accused the NHS Alliance of becoming ‘a lobby group for alternative medicine’.

It was in response to an opinion piece in this week's Pulse, in which Dr Dixon hailed the benefits of complementary medicine.

Professor Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, told Pulse the NHS Alliance dealt with public funds and had a duty to evaluate evidence fairly.

‘They are an important organisation and have a responsibility to have a balanced view. What I have seen on their website is disturbingly devoid of any critical evaluation.

‘There is more than one side to it and the evidence does not seem to be on the side they are presenting. It is dangerously one-sided,’ he said.

Professor David Colquhoun, professor of pharmacology at University College London and another leading critic of complementary medicine, accused the alliance of being a lobby group. ‘I am sure it is well intentioned but it is very deceptive. [Lobbying] for alternative medicine is its main purpose.’

Dr Mike Dixon: said he was the target of a campaign to force him out of his NHS Alliance role

Dr Dixon, a GP in Cullompton, Devon, and an honorary fellow at Exeter University, dismissed the criticisms. He said: ‘The problem is that in many areas of general practice there is a lack of good evidence and we simply have to do the best we can.

‘It seems reasonable in such circumstances to offer patients a choice of conventional and complementary therapies where safe and appropriate.

‘As a commentator who has never practised general practice in this country, Professor Ernst should stop lobbing grenades and telling us how to do our job,’ he said.

War of words

Professor Edzard Ernst, Peninsula Medical School
‘They are misleading to the degree of being irresponsible. If I was a GP or a PCT manager and my sole source of information was the NHS Alliance I would get a picture that would not be the truth about complementary medicine.’

Dr Michael Dixon, chair of the NHS Alliance
‘This boring rant is graceless and predictable. The NHS Alliance has members who are for and against complementary medicine, but it is not actually a big issue.’

Readers' comments

Ken Mayne | 25 Feb 09
In my postings in response to recent related articles in Pulse I have proposed a "peace process" for stakeholders in this otherwise intractable debate. Any takers?
Peter Flegg | 28 Feb 09
I was until now unaware that one had to be a GP rather than an academic in order to evaluate evidence.
I wonder why Dr Dixon responded to Prof Ernst's comments by criticising his lack of GP experience, rather than by addressing the very pertinent points that he raised?
Because there are areas in GP practice where good evidence is lacking, but this is not an excuse for Dr Dixon's recommendation that inappropriate and poorly validated alternatives with an even less robust evidence base should be used, purely because they may seem "safe", and give patients a semblance of "choice".
E Ernst | 02 Mar 09
Dixon's defense is not effective! I tried it when I was caught driving in the wrong direction in a one-way street. The police man criticized my action harshly. When he was finished I tried my luck and replied "this was an ungracious rant - and anyway, who are you to tell me how to do my job?" He was unimpressed. I don't advise others to use this type of defense.
Andrew Sikorski - WADHURST | 05 Apr 10
Clinical experience and Royal College of General Practice recognise the body's ability to heal. Research has shown patients choosing options for their treatment rather than adhering to a 'doctor knows best' diktat have significant, improved health outcomes. There is a large proportion of clinicians who view hope in a patient as a key to engendering optimal outcomes. Non-clinical pundits may have a depth of scientific expertise, yet without an everyday relationship to the clinical coalface, their theoretical assumptions would need to await results of 'post marketing surveillance' to assess efficacy. Iatrogenic harm is already prevalent enough to support the use of every available means in reducing the iatrogenic burden to the beleaguered coffers of the NHS. To this end clinicians have a distinct and important part to play in advising on scientists' inherent blind spots and patients deserve the advocacy service of their clinicians to protect them from scientific dogma. GPs are trained to evaluate scientific publications' relevance to the patient consulting them for medical advice. As a scientist, clinician in NHS practice with an interest in using complementary practices both alongside usual practice and when there is no evidence based orthodox medical intervention I offer myself as a 'taker' for Ken Mayne's proposal.

Post and bookmark this story at the following sites:What is this?

Click on images

Related articles

Academics and NHS Alliance clash over complementary medicine

Readers' comments

Tell us your views