12.
Opinion:
Defending Complimentary Alternative Medicine against
Corporate Science.
Copyright © Tony
Burfield August 2004
One rarely gets such a display from drug company employee, embodying Western
Corporate Science’s belittling arrogance towards Aromatherapy and
Complimentary Medicine in general, as is reported in the notes of a recent
Society of Cosmetic Scientists lecture concerning Botanicals & Cosmetics
given recently at the London College of Fashion in London1. It is
typical of a sneering attitude, which reveals an ignorance of the alternative
practices themselves, as well as highlighting many basic misconceptions.
The Taxol Story.
Colin Sanders (Head of Product Formulation at
Medex Scientific) made an unfortunate start to his lecture by choosing to talk
about Taxol, a drug used as a treatment for cancer “derived from a Californian
Yew tree species”. He apparently failed to mention that there is an ethical
side to the exploitation of this particular botanical drug. The real story is
that taxol from a Pacific yew species Taxus brevifolia Nutt was
discovered in 1964 to be active against cultured murine leukaemia cells via a
screening programme of plant actives conducted by the National Cancer Institute
(NCI) in the US. To cut a long story short2 after trials the NCI
eventually decided to treat 12,000 patients per year with taxol but this would
have resulted in the disappearance of the Pacific Yew in the US (and in the
disappearance of a creature called the spotted wol that was dependent on this
tree!) and its exploitation was therefore successfully opposed by
environmentalists. The attention of the drug barons therefore turned to another
taxol (and a taxol-analogue 10-deacetylbaccatin III) bearing
species Taxus baccata subsp. wallichiana growing in the Kumaon
& other parts of the Himalaya, which was already under depletion and facing
extinction in some areas. Indiscriminate harvesting of bark and needles for its
taxol content has further threatened the species (Kumar et al. 1997) in
spite of regeneration programmes. As with the history of Sandalwood3
and Agarwood exploitation, the slow growth of the trees in these planting
programmes probably means that these measures would ultimately have been
ineffective strategies to preserve the species in the long-term.
However, very luckily for the Himalayan ecology, in was discovered that Taxus baccata also grew in the UK and US, and that English yew contained more 10-deacetylbaccatin III than the Himalayan tree, and in contrast could be harvested without apparent environmental consequences. By 1991, 20 million yew trees were also under plantation in Ohio and Michegan for the extraction of 10-deacetylbaccatin III from the needles. Bristol-Myers Squibb who were leaders in this taxol producing technology, eventually owning a semi-synthetic process to produce taxol, thereby obviating the need for yew bark, but they pulled out of taxol manufacture in 1993, as taxol derivatives began to be produced by other manufacturers. And so luckily, the development of cheaper chemical synthesis routes to taxol effectively saved the species.
Of Profits and Biopiracy
Sanders (as reported by Roberts) goes on to say that the idea that herbal
remedies as “alternative” products are ignored by “conventional”
medicine is not true, and that natural products have been the mainstay of the
pharmaceutical industry. It is true that pharmaceutical companies have exploited
the endemic knowledge of many ethnic peoples over the years to produce
profitable pharmaceutical products amid many accusations of biopiracy. In Feb
2004 the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies advised that
patent officials need access to indigenous knowledge when weighing up the merits
of prospective patents to decide if the application is novel or based on
traditional practices. This might theoretically prevent the
repetition of the situation were the W. Grace Company was given the patenting
rights to the Neem Tree - a decision subsequently and quite rightly taken away
in the international courts. But in reality, for every victory there are
thousands of losses - the resources are just not there to fight off thes ponging
greed of certain transnational concerns employed in these acts.
The US position of extensive freedom to patent ahead of commercial
exploitation, by allowing the patenting of life forms, and the fear of this
policy also being adopted in Europe via the passing of certain European
Directives, has caused a certain degree of panic across continents, such as
India and Indonesia. Some areas such as Chiapias in S. Mexico have actually
banned transnational companies from entering the country to mount bioprospecting
expeditions and thereby robbing the peoples of the potential of their indigenous
plants by patenting their pharmaceutical properties. Our EMP's, no doubt
persuaded by the lobbying from multi-nationals, seem to have a fear of losing
out on future Agri-business to countries such as Japanese and the US, although
the voters they represent, might have made it quite plain that they have little
appetite for biotechnology in its various forms e.g. with respect to
bio-pharmaceuticals (unnatural chemicals engineered from plants) and GM
products. Nevertheless the party pressure to vote in favour of these measures is
there. We are already seeing moves in many developing countries to embrace this
sort of technology, as Western multinationals investigate and patent a variety
of indigenous plants and seeds, sometimes attempting to exploit their latent
properties in novel ways (but they are still patenting the plant!). Worse still,
because of the crisis of biodiversity, as in some instances seed banks of rare
and threatened species are now totally in the hands of private industry. No
doubt if the financial rewards are not evident for these reserved life forms,
the private owners will eventually unplug the freezers to save building space
and maintenance costs.
I am reminded that the annual Captain Hook Award Prize for Biopiracy was won in
2002 by the U.S. University of Toledo in Ohio State for a patent on Ethiopia's
endod plant. This, remember, is only 2 years on from the Conference of
Biodiversity, where 182 countries signed an agreement to stop drug and perfume
countries plundering the natural resources of countries without paying anything
back to the peoples.
Blind prejudice or what?
Some Sanders lecture quotes:
1. Acupuncture.
Sanders is reported by Roberts as saying about acupuncture
“…. it may have some clinical relevance, but is based on ancient
philosophy that is clearly nonsense”. No actual reasoning is reported in the
article to explain why a complete system of (Chinese) medicine developed over
thousands of years, and an integral part of a health system looking after tens
of millions of people can be loftily dismissed in this manner.
2. Reflexology.
“…appears to be free from any baggage of associated ideas and if it
proves beneficial then why not?” (The condescending attitude here is breath
taking, but Sanders does not appear to comprehend the principles behind the
therapy if he thinks there are no associated ideas).
3. Homeopathy.
“…this should be demonstrable in a clinical trial….it is not”. In
fact all the investigations that I have seen into homeopathy have had serious
design faults and have lacked sufficient scientific rigour to be able to safely
come to this conclusion. I don’t presume to have seen all such studies, but I
would be interested to see any which have truly addressed these shortcomings.
4. Aromatherapy.
“Aromatherapy is in vogue and attracts outrageous claims”…and….
“Colin (Sanders) found it hard to equate a cancer cure with sniffing
things”. In fact, no Professional Aromatherapy Organisation would allow its
registered (aromatherapist) members to make any claim about curing cancer,
although many clinical studies have been devoted to making the lives of cancer
patients subsequently more comfortable through complimentary therapy. Sanders
probably misunderstands that the efficacy of a full aromatherapy treatment
regime (an “intervention”) cannot be realistically reproduced and evaluated
by a few untrained technicians in lab coats on a cold laboratory bench. If
however Sanders would like to read about a well designed and conducted trials in
massage and aromatherapy in a clinical setting with statistically proven
beneficial outcomes for institutionalised subjects, then perhaps he would like
to refer to studies conducted by Field et al. (1992) and Wilkinson (1995)
as listed in the references below.
Sanders also remarks that “there is some evidence of measured effects of
essential oils (e.g. a soporific effect of lavender oil on infant mice)”.
Perhaps here Sanders is confusing aromatherapy with aromachology, but in any
case the effects of lavender and linalol isomers has been very well
investigated, and is reviewed by Burfield et al. (2003). A wealth of data
exists inn the public domain on the physiological and other effects of essential
oils, which can be found for example in the Aromatherapy Research Data Base
marketed by EORC. And so the statement starting “there is some evidence…”
is an understatement of the true position.
5. Bach Flower Remedies.
According to Roberts “Colin dismissed the Bach Flower Remedies as simply
daft”. As this is not self-evident to the unprejudiced mind, and since again
we are not entitled to an explanation, or reference to a single study proving
the lack of efficacy of these products, I take the observation as being
essentially worthless. In the reported lecture that follows, Tony Dweck is
quoted as saying that these products (amongst others including Aromatherapy and
Spa treatments) are areas of concern, being aimed at vulnerable groups. Of
course this wouldn’t apply to the cosmetics trade would it - where jars of
expensive cream promising rejuvenating properties for the complexion and
containing exotic ingredients from rare plant species have definitely not been
sold to vulnerable women over the years, concerned about their appearance due to
the ravages of time. No, no, of course not!
Fighting Back.
Sanders also says “When you go to the pharmacy for medication you engage
with the system and ethics of the healthcare industry”. Sure. You also engage
a system which inadvertently has caused large numbers of unfortunate deaths and illnesses for huge numbers of patients via the unwanted
side-effects of prescribed drugs, and which, in part at least, is regulated by
an unholy marriage between big business and the lawmakers - see for example
articles on the corruption of science by Schubert (2004) & Epstein et al.
(undated). People choose alternative therapies for minor ailments because they
feel they are “in control” of their medication rather than relying on
disclosures of side-effects from drug manufacturers via their GP’s, and
because for less serious complaints, many believe they have a right to choose
traditional medicines rather than synthetic drugs. But the right to choose
natural products is in effect becoming more and more threatened as the
democratic process is consecutively undermined by influence from the chemical
and pharmaceutical industries. This is exemplified for example by the
disappearance of products from shop shelves under the guise of adverse safety
study findings on natural medicines, many of which are themselves deeply
scientifically flawed (as in the recent kava-kava fiasco). In many cases
biological species causing diseases (mosquitoes, pathogenic micro-organisms
etc.) cannot develop a resistance to an efficacious herbal extract whereas as
they can to a single drug. But this is a big subject that cannot be addressed in
a few lines – however it would have introduced some degree of balance into
what is basically a pro-industry lecture, if only some of these issues had at
least been mentioned.
Alternative medicine has many critics – but needs defending against unfair
statements such as those above.
References.
1. Roberts M. (2004) S.C.S. Report Southern Educational Event 2004 “When
Does Addition of a Botanical Mean that a Cosmetic is not a Cosmetic” London
College of Fashion London W1 8th July 2004 SCS Newsletter
Aug/Sept 2004 pp 6-8.
2. Fully reported in Pandey G. (2000) Medicinal
Plants of the Himalaya Vol 2 Sri Satguru Publicns. New Delhi, India pp
317-330.
3. - See the Cropwatch series on http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~nodice/
4. Burfield T. et al. (2003)
“Substituting for Rosewood Oil Aniba
rosaeodora var. amazonica Ducke
– a look at other high linalol containing oils.” Aromatherapy
Today Vol 26, June 2003 pp30-37.
5. Epstein et al. (undated) see http://www.chem-tox.com/letters/banned.htm
6. Field T. et al.(1992) “Massage reduces
anxiety in child and adolescent psychiatric patients” J. Am. Acad. Child
Adolesc. Psychol. 31(1), 125-131.
7. Kumar S. et al. (1997) Indian Medicinal
Plants facing Genetic Errosion pub. CIMAP, Lucknow, India pp 196-200.
8. Schubert, David San Diego Union-Tribune 09-07-04
9. Wilkinson S. (1995) “Aromatherapy &
Massage in Palliative Care” Int. J. Palliative Nurs. 1(1),
21-30.