ANH reply to Proffessor Waxmans put down of Natural Products in the BMJ

[Guest guest]

For those of you unfortunate enough to read any articles or see any

television reports featuring Professor Jonathan Waxman, a natural

products-hating oncologist from Imperial College , London, indulge

yourself in some soothing words from ANH's Medical Director, Dr

Damien Downing.

 

On seeing Professor Waxman's `personal view' issued in the pages of

the British Medical Journal yesterday (BMJ 2006; 333:1129. For full

article refer to pg 3 of the following link

http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/november/pv1129.pdf), Damien

immediately responded via the BMJ's Rapid Response pages and posted

the following response:

 

Professor Waxman employs and perpetuates a crucial medical myth —

that, in contrast to complementary therapies, conventional therapies

are all evidence-based, on sound science. But the BMJ's website

Clinical Evidence reports that, of the 2404 treatments they have

surveyed, only 15% are rated as beneficial, while 47% are of unknown

effectiveness1. In his own speciality, indeed, chemotherapy for

cancer was found in a 2004 systematic review of studies in the USA

and Australia2 to improve overall 5-year survival chances by less

than 2.5%. Interestingly, the review of dietary interventions he

cites3 derived an odds ratio for the effect of a healthy diet, with

or without dietary supplements, of 0.90 — which appears to make them

probably 4 times as effective as chemotherapy. Different end-points,

granted, and a big confidence interval, but nevertheless " absence of

evidence is not evidence of absence " .

 

Talk of " vile and cynical exploitation " could with equal

justification be applied to the cancer industry, into which billions

has been poured in recent decades, to very little effect. Surely

Professor Waxman should be careful not to become, as discussed in

the same issue of BMJ, " a lapdog to drug firms " ?

 

1 http://www.clinicalevidence.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp

2 Morgan G, Ward R, Barton M. The contribution of cytotoxic

chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies. Clin Oncol (R

Coll Radiol), 2004; 16(8): 549-60.

3 Davies AA, Davey Smith G, et al.. Nutritional interventions and

outcome in patients with cancer or preinvasive lesions: systematic

review. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 14: 961-73.

 

It's clear from Professor Waxman's response that a threat is

perceived not only from dietary/food supplements used by millions to

support their health, he has also taken a sideswipe at organic food,

produced by a branch of agriculture supported by increasing numbers

of consumers that is threatening Big Food and agri-business. The

irony, of course, is that those most interested in reducing the

burden on the healthcare system and spending time in doctor's

waiting rooms are those that will be more likely to consume both

organic foods and high quality food supplements. Market research

has demonstrated that most users of food supplements do not use

these products to counter poor diet, but rather use them to add

nutrients that they believe are missing as a result of modern

agriculture and food products.

 

The increasingly vocal hatred expressed by key opinion leaders

within the orthodox medical community has to be an expression of the

threat that they perceive from the millions of people around the

world who continue to use products derived from nature as key

components of their healthcare regime.

 

You'll appreciate that this is no time for anyone to put their head

in the sand!

 

Please feel free to forward this as widely as you can to anyone who

you feel may be interested.

 

In health,

 

The ANH Team