A new World Health Organization center is being established in India. Alternative medicine is so important in the country that there are several ministries dedicated to it.
Many people use traditional medicine – but what are these methods really good for? A new World Health Organization (WHO) center wants to find out. The center is in India, a country where alternative medicine is so important that it even has its own ministry – one for Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi attended the inauguration of the center in the city of Jamnagar in mid-April. “India’s traditional medicine system is not just a treatment. It is a holistic science of life,” he said. According to the WHO, his government supports the center with 250 million US dollars (230 million euros). WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said: “The center aims to be an innovation engine to advance an evidence, data and sustainability agenda in traditional medicine.” It should connect practitioners of traditional medicine around the world and help set standards for research.
traditional medicine
Traditional medicine is a broad field. According to a WHO statement about the center, 80 percent of the world’s population uses traditional medicine. These include acupuncture, Ayurvedic medicine and herbal blends.
Traditional medicine is also represented in modern science. According to the WHO, about 40% of all drugs approved today are derived from natural substances. The discovery of aspirin, for example, was based on ancient recipes made with willow bark. Research into artemisinin for use against malaria, for which the Nobel Prize was awarded in 2015, began with a study of ancient texts on Chinese medicine.
At the very least, taking a closer look at healing methods that have been developed over the centuries, checking them for plausibility and, when in doubt, conducting good clinical studies makes sense, said Georg Rüschemeyer of Cochrane, an international network. that provides the scientific basis for decisions. in the health sector. Cochrane is particularly known for its so-called Cochrane Reviews, systematic reviews that summarize all the scientific evidence on a specific issue in medicine or other health sciences.
Effective or dangerous?
However, Rüschemeyer also emphasized that, in addition to the examples of traditional methods mentioned by the WHO, which form the basis of now-established therapies, there are probably many other examples where traditional methods have proved ineffective or even dangerous on closer scrutiny. Bleed key. Whether a procedure justifies investing a lot of money in reviewing studies is always an important consideration.
There are several Cochrane reviews on the use of traditional methods, such as acupuncture, for specific problems. But: “From my personal experience at Cochrane, I would say that I haven’t found many Cochrane reviews that have shown really convincing evidence for a traditional procedure,” said Rüschemeyer. This is often due to the fact that when you search, you only find a few studies, often poorly done, that can neither prove nor disprove a benefit – which brings you back to the question of whether you should invest limited research funds in a procedure that is scientifically not very plausible – for example, homeopathy.
Professor Emeritus Edzard Ernst, who has long held the Chair of Alternative Medicine at the University of Exeter, also warned that while one should wait and see who will lead the center and what work will come out, the WHO press release is full of more air. hot and buzzwords.
From Hippocratic bloodletting to the theory of evolution to mRNA vaccines, science is shaped by outrage at the status quo. But how much skepticism is appropriate for progress to succeed? And how much trust is needed to avoid falling for conspiracy theories? A search for clues. [premium]
(Anne-Sophie Galli/APA/dpa/Red.)