Regulating alternative therapies

By Merill Haseen

�

IN THIS�country, we spend more than �350 million a year on natural remedies, but how do we know�they work

�

Although many alternative remedies can be as safe and effective as conventional medicine, recent scares about untrained therapists have made many people fearful of trying alternative remedies.

�

After a year-long investigation, the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology has called for alternative remedies to be properly researched and regulated. It� wants complementary practitioners to be trained and registered so they can be struck off in the same ways as GPs if they are incompetent.

�

At the moment, only two therapies - osteopathy and chiropractics - are regulated by law. There was enough evidence, however, to show that acupuncture and herbal medicine are as effective as conventional medicines - and sometimes far better - than antibiotics, which are increasingly notorious for the risk of unpleasant side effects. Such therapies, the report said,�should be properly regulated to protect patients from 'quacks'.

�

Other treatments, such as crystal therapy, traditional Chinese medicine and iridology, were condemned by the report, because there was 'sparse evidence' that they worked.

�

One reason�why is there so little scientific evidence for many therapies is that pharmaceutical companies won't fund the research. This is because they can't patent the findings and make a profit. For every �100 spent on orthodox medical research, only 8p is spent on complementary therapies.

�

�