Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Why be so un-complementary?

\\I find myself reading the answers to Answer Back provided by Professor Edzard Ernst with an uneasy feeling ­ how can a professor of complementary medicine be so negative about his own specialty?

In his discussion of aloe vera (October 27) he says no clinical trials have proven its benefit for any indication, yet I have found studies that confirm its benefits in the treatment of burns.

His closing remarks regarding possible drug interactions appear to be his own speculation and are potentially scaremongering.

Dr Anabel Harries

Stotfold

Herts

Professor Ernst replies:

Dr Harries confuses negative with critical (as in analytical). My job is to apply the rules of science to complementary medicine ­ an uncritical scientist is clearly a contradiction in terms.

Regarding the use of aloe vera for treating burns, the evidence is neither uniform nor methodologically sound. Critical analysis of the totality of the data cannot conclude that aloe vera is effective for this or any other condition.

The advice regarding possible interactions was extracted from respected textbooks!

Rate this article 

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Have your say