|A paper published in the Postgraduate Medical Journal, October 2007, has been reported widely. In the same issue there was a commentary by Edzard Ernst. They show the astonishingly poor evidence than herbal treatments work, despite the fact that they have been around for thousands of years. They looked at 1330 published trials on herbal medicines and found 3 (yes three) that stood up to scrutiny, Of those three, two were negative and one indecisive||
Red clover, Derwentwater.
A systematic review of randomised clinical trials of individualised herbal medicine in any indication, R. Guo, P. H. Canter, and E. Ernst, Postgrad Med J 83: 633-637 [Get the reprint]
Herbal medicine: buy one get two free, E. Ernst, Postgrad Med J 83: 615-617 [get the reprint]
Grab the reprints before I am told to remove them.
The paper says
“Systematic searches of electronic databases and contacting
experts and professional bodies in the field resulted in the
location of only three randomised clinical trials of individualised
herbal medicine. It should be stressed that professional
bodies representing the interests of different practitioner
factions from around the world were unable to contribute any
more studies than this. In view of the long history and
widespread use of medical herbalism, Chinese herbal medicine
and Ayurvedic herbal medicine in many and diverse indications,
this should be a cause for concern. It indicates that
individualised herbal medicine has an extremely sparse
evidence base and that there is no convincing evidence
supporting its use in any indication.”
“More and more people are turning to herbal medicine as a kinder alternative to mainstream medicine, with its over reliance on pharmaceutical products.”
Wrong. Herbal medicines are pharmaceutical products. They are just unstandardised, and often impure and contaminated, pharmaceutical products.
“Ann Walker, director of the British Herbal Medicines Association, insisted that most herbalists were well-trained and knew when to refer patients. She said herbalists took a three or four-year degree course before accreditation.
She acknowledged the lack of proof of efficacy for individualised herbal medicine. “The evidence is scanty because the studies have only recently been started,” she said. This did not mean there was no efficacy.”
Just a thought: shouldn’t you have some evidence that they work before you start selling them? These things have been around for thousands of years but the “studies have only recently been started”. You couldn’t make it up. You can’t have a high level of training if there is no evidence. The paucity of trials makes it very hard to know how you can fill up a three or four year course with anything but idle speculations. Universities should not being giving degrees in idle speculation.
Quote of the day. . Of all the pathetic defences offered by herbalists, this one, quoted in the Daily Mail, is my favourite.
“Jane Gray, of the National Institute of Medical Herbalists, said: “We would challenge the conclusions reached by this study based on such little data.”
“We want more research, but we’re all in private practice and cannot afford to stop earning to run a trial over several months.”
The fact that there is “so little data” is the conclusion. And perish the thought that a herbalist should “stop earning” just in order to find out whether what they are selling does any good.
The regulation scam
Alison Denham, speaking for the National Institute of Medical Herbalists, is quoted as saying
“But there are certainly issues around the expertise of practitioners which need to be addressed, and we look forward to government regulation which imposes a high standard of training on anyone who wants to register.”
Like all forms of alternative medicine, herbalists are desperate for government “regulation” because they know it gives the appearance of official approval without requiring them to show that they can do the slightest good.
Reports on this paper
The BBC web site: “Tailored herbal medicine ‘futile’”.
The Guardian report, by Sarah Boseley, is pretty good. “Herbalists’ cocktails may do more harm than good, say researchers.”
- Call for individualised remedies to be banned
- Little evidence to support claims of efficacy
The Times has another excellent report by Nigel Hawkes. “High street herbalists can offer no evidence that their remedies work”
The Independent. “Natural medicine on trial: The trouble with herbs. Traditional herbal remedies have never been more fashionable: sales have almost doubled in eight years. There’s just one problem: science suggests that they don’t work.”. This time Jeremy Laurance got the headline right (unlike the acupuncture piece). But where did that list of “Herbal remedies that work” at the end come from? Had he checked the Cochrane Reviews? I think not.
The Daily Mail. “Herb cures that ‘do you more harm than good’ “. Pretty good report. specially for the Daily Mail.
The Scotsman. “A natural cure?” Lyndsay Moss. Sadly, and unusually, this is the only really poor report. Just look at the end of it.
On Saturday morning (6 October) I did an interview on the Dublin radio station, Newstalk. The host, Brendan O’Brien spoke also to Mary Plunkett, from the Professional Register of Traditional Chinese Medicine. She assured us that that, although there may be no evidence that it works published in the West, there were lots written in Chinese. What a pity that I had not yet read Ben Goldacre’s column, on this week’s bad news for herbalists. He cited a reference that was new to me.
You can read the abstract here. [download pdf]. The paper, by Vickers, Niraj, Goyal, Harland and Rees (1998, Controlled Clinical Trials, 19, 159-166) has the title “Do Certain Countries Produce Only Positive Results? A Systematic Review of Controlled Trials”. The conclusion is riveting.
“In the study of acupuncture trials, 252 of 1085 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Research conducted in certain countries was uniformly favorable to acupuncture; all trials originating in China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were positive, as were 10 out of 11 of those published in Russia/USSR. In studies that examined interventions other than acupuncture, 405 of 1100 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Of trials published in England, 75% gave the test treatment as superior to control. The results for China, Japan, Russia/USSR, and Taiwan were 99%, 89%, 97%, and 95%, respectively. No trial published in China or Russia/USSR found a test treatment to be ineffective.”