NY Times article on nontraditional medicine

[Dana Ullman, MPH]

Friends,
The NY Times (February 3, 2006) did a front-page story on
"nontraditional medicine." It is easy to get access to this story at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/03/health/03patient.html (note: you will
have to register at the site...it is FREE to do so!).
Here's my letter to the editor...
Dear Editor,
Two articles in your paper today (February 3, 2006) described
growing interest in alternative or natural medicines, and yet, your
reporters (Benedict Carey and James McKinley, Jr.) both describe these
treatment as a part of "nontraditional" medicine. This is inaccurate and
insulting. According to the World Health Organization, the various natural
medicines and therapies used throughout the world are a part of "traditional
medicine" because they have a long tradition to their use. Both of your
articles also described people who use these treatments as "desperate." In
actual fact, there is little research that confirms this observation. If
anything, research has consistently found that people who seek other natural
or alternative treatments are considerably more educated than those who do
not (if necessary, I can provide specific references to this).
Your reporters also assert that there is little or no "scientific
evidence" that these treatments work. First of all, there IS a growing body
of evidence that they do, even though this body of research is considerably
smaller than that for conventional medicine. However, when you consider
that the vast majority of conventional treatments only initially are found
to be effective until new and better research discovers that these treatment
do not work after all and that they usually cause more harm than good.
There are good reasons that so many conventional drugs have not been used
for more than 10 or 20 years: the "science" isn't really there.

Dana Ullman, MPH
mail@homeopathic.com
Berkeley, CA.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]