Jump to content

National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health: Difference between revisions

National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (view source)

Revision as of 00:18, 8 February 2025

4 bytes removed ,  8 February
m
Text replacement - "Associated Press" to "Associated Press"
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
m (Text replacement - "Associated Press" to "Associated Press")
Line 69: Line 69:
In 2008 [[Josephine Briggs]] was appointed as director of NCCAM. She was "a [[nephrologist]] with impeccable scientific credentials". The appointment was considered surprising since she did not have a complementary and alternative medicine background or integrative medicine background. Writing for [[Science-Based Medicine]], [[David Gorski]] states Briggs was in an impossible position: "She was a real scientist trying to impose scientific rigor on an enterprise that was inherently resistant to such an imposition." She attempted to impose a more scientific approach with two long-term strategic plans. The plans used "one of the most harmful tactics of quacks to legitimize their quackery under the banner of 'integrative medicine,' the co-opting of the opioid crisis as an excuse to claim all nonpharmacological treatments for pain as being 'integrative.' The results are threatening great harm to chronic pain patients by misguided governments wanting to force them to undergo quack treatments like acupuncture as a means of getting them off opioids." However, she was able to eliminate studies on homeopathy and tried to counter anti-vaccine beliefs. Energy healing was "relegated to the fringes, if not eliminated". Most of the studies became centered around nutrition, exercise, [[pharmacognosy]], "and other modalities within the realm of science-based medicine".<ref name=gorski>{{cite web |last1=Gorski |first1=David |author-link=David Gorski|title=NCCIH has a new director, and she's a true believer in acupuncture. |url=https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/nccih-has-a-new-director-and-shes-a-true-believer-in-acupuncture/ |website=Science-Based Medicine |date=September 3, 2018 |access-date=September 15, 2018}}</ref>
In 2008 [[Josephine Briggs]] was appointed as director of NCCAM. She was "a [[nephrologist]] with impeccable scientific credentials". The appointment was considered surprising since she did not have a complementary and alternative medicine background or integrative medicine background. Writing for [[Science-Based Medicine]], [[David Gorski]] states Briggs was in an impossible position: "She was a real scientist trying to impose scientific rigor on an enterprise that was inherently resistant to such an imposition." She attempted to impose a more scientific approach with two long-term strategic plans. The plans used "one of the most harmful tactics of quacks to legitimize their quackery under the banner of 'integrative medicine,' the co-opting of the opioid crisis as an excuse to claim all nonpharmacological treatments for pain as being 'integrative.' The results are threatening great harm to chronic pain patients by misguided governments wanting to force them to undergo quack treatments like acupuncture as a means of getting them off opioids." However, she was able to eliminate studies on homeopathy and tried to counter anti-vaccine beliefs. Energy healing was "relegated to the fringes, if not eliminated". Most of the studies became centered around nutrition, exercise, [[pharmacognosy]], "and other modalities within the realm of science-based medicine".<ref name=gorski>{{cite web |last1=Gorski |first1=David |author-link=David Gorski|title=NCCIH has a new director, and she's a true believer in acupuncture. |url=https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/nccih-has-a-new-director-and-shes-a-true-believer-in-acupuncture/ |website=Science-Based Medicine |date=September 3, 2018 |access-date=September 15, 2018}}</ref>


In 2009, after 17 years of government testing for $2.5&nbsp;billion, almost no clearly proven efficacy of alternative therapies had been found.<ref name="$2.5 billion">{{cite news |url= https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna31190909 |title= $2.5&nbsp;billion spent, no alternative cures found |work= [[NBCNews.com]] |department= Alternative Medicine |agency= [[Associated Press]] |date= June 10, 2009 }}</ref> Senator Harkin complained, "One of the purposes of this center was to investigate and validate alternative approaches. Quite frankly, I must say publicly that it has fallen short. I think quite frankly that in this center and the office previously before it, most of its focus has been on disproving things rather than seeking out and approving."<ref name=SSOAGGRAM/><ref>Full Committee Hearing, Integrative Care: A Pathway to a Healthier Nation, SD 4-30 (February 26, 2009), United States Senate, [http://help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=03629575-0924-cb2e-13cb-68a8065ababb]</ref><ref name="THWS">Tom Harkin's War on Science, Peter Lipson, Discover Magazine editor's opinion in New York Times, February 3, 2009, [https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/tom-harkins-war-on-science-or-meet-the-new-boss/]</ref> Members of the scientific community criticized this comment as showing Harkin did not understand the basics of scientific inquiry, which tests hypotheses, but never intentionally attempts to "validate approaches".<ref name=SSOAGGRAM/> In 2009, the NCCAM's yearly budget was increased to about $122&nbsp;million.<ref name="SSOAGGRAM">{{Cite news |last=Brown |first=David |date=2009-03-17 |title=Scientists Speak Out Against Federal Funds for Research on Alternative Medicine |language=en-US |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031602139.html |access-date=2022-11-18 |issn=0190-8286}}</ref> Overall NIH funding for CAM research increased to $300&nbsp;million by 2009.<ref name=SSOAGGRAM/> By 2009, Americans were spending $34&nbsp;billion annually on CAM.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32219873|title=$34 billion spent yearly on alternative medicine|website=NBC News|date=July 30, 2009 }}</ref>
In 2009, after 17 years of government testing for $2.5&nbsp;billion, almost no clearly proven efficacy of alternative therapies had been found.<ref name="$2.5 billion">{{cite news |url= https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna31190909 |title= $2.5&nbsp;billion spent, no alternative cures found |work= [[NBCNews.com]] |department= Alternative Medicine |agency= Associated Press |date= June 10, 2009 }}</ref> Senator Harkin complained, "One of the purposes of this center was to investigate and validate alternative approaches. Quite frankly, I must say publicly that it has fallen short. I think quite frankly that in this center and the office previously before it, most of its focus has been on disproving things rather than seeking out and approving."<ref name=SSOAGGRAM/><ref>Full Committee Hearing, Integrative Care: A Pathway to a Healthier Nation, SD 4-30 (February 26, 2009), United States Senate, [http://help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=03629575-0924-cb2e-13cb-68a8065ababb]</ref><ref name="THWS">Tom Harkin's War on Science, Peter Lipson, Discover Magazine editor's opinion in New York Times, February 3, 2009, [https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/tom-harkins-war-on-science-or-meet-the-new-boss/]</ref> Members of the scientific community criticized this comment as showing Harkin did not understand the basics of scientific inquiry, which tests hypotheses, but never intentionally attempts to "validate approaches".<ref name=SSOAGGRAM/> In 2009, the NCCAM's yearly budget was increased to about $122&nbsp;million.<ref name="SSOAGGRAM">{{Cite news |last=Brown |first=David |date=2009-03-17 |title=Scientists Speak Out Against Federal Funds for Research on Alternative Medicine |language=en-US |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031602139.html |access-date=2022-11-18 |issn=0190-8286}}</ref> Overall NIH funding for CAM research increased to $300&nbsp;million by 2009.<ref name=SSOAGGRAM/> By 2009, Americans were spending $34&nbsp;billion annually on CAM.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32219873|title=$34 billion spent yearly on alternative medicine|website=NBC News|date=July 30, 2009 }}</ref>


In 2012, the ''[[Journal of the American Medical Association]]'' (''JAMA'') published a criticism that NCCAM had funded study after study, but had "failed to prove that complementary or alternative therapies are anything more than placebos".<ref name=ITPWS/> The ''JAMA'' criticism pointed to large wasting of research money on testing scientifically implausible treatments, citing "NCCAM officials spending $374,000 to find that inhaling lemon and lavender scents does not promote wound healing; $750,000 to find that prayer does not cure AIDS or hasten recovery from breast-reconstruction surgery; $390,000 to find that ancient Indian remedies do not control [[type 2 diabetes]]; $700,000 to find that magnets do not treat arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, or migraine headaches; and $406,000 to find that coffee [[enema]]s do not cure pancreatic cancer."<ref name="ITPWS">Is taxpayer money well spent or wasted on alternative-medicine research?, Susan Perry, August 5, 2012, [[MinnPost]], [https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/05/taxpayer-money-well-spent-or-wasted-alternative-medicine-research]</ref> It was pointed out that the public generally ignored negative results from testing, that people continue to "believe what they want to believe, arguing that it does not matter what the data show: They know what works for them".<ref name=ITPWS/> Continued increasing use of CAM products was also blamed on the lack of FDA ability to regulate alternative products, where negative studies do not result in FDA warnings or FDA-mandated changes on labeling, whereby few consumers are aware that many claims of many supplements were found not to be supported.<ref name=ITPWS/>
In 2012, the ''[[Journal of the American Medical Association]]'' (''JAMA'') published a criticism that NCCAM had funded study after study, but had "failed to prove that complementary or alternative therapies are anything more than placebos".<ref name=ITPWS/> The ''JAMA'' criticism pointed to large wasting of research money on testing scientifically implausible treatments, citing "NCCAM officials spending $374,000 to find that inhaling lemon and lavender scents does not promote wound healing; $750,000 to find that prayer does not cure AIDS or hasten recovery from breast-reconstruction surgery; $390,000 to find that ancient Indian remedies do not control [[type 2 diabetes]]; $700,000 to find that magnets do not treat arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, or migraine headaches; and $406,000 to find that coffee [[enema]]s do not cure pancreatic cancer."<ref name="ITPWS">Is taxpayer money well spent or wasted on alternative-medicine research?, Susan Perry, August 5, 2012, [[MinnPost]], [https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/05/taxpayer-money-well-spent-or-wasted-alternative-medicine-research]</ref> It was pointed out that the public generally ignored negative results from testing, that people continue to "believe what they want to believe, arguing that it does not matter what the data show: They know what works for them".<ref name=ITPWS/> Continued increasing use of CAM products was also blamed on the lack of FDA ability to regulate alternative products, where negative studies do not result in FDA warnings or FDA-mandated changes on labeling, whereby few consumers are aware that many claims of many supplements were found not to be supported.<ref name=ITPWS/>
Retrieved from ‘https://openusaproject.com/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/27679’