National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Criticism
Critics attest that despite the publicized intentions at its founding, NCCAM and its predecessor, the Office of Alternative Medicine, have spent more than $800 million on such research since 1991 but have neither succeeded in demonstrating the efficacy of a single alternative method nor declared any alternative medicine treatment ineffective. "The NCCAM continues to fund and promote pseudoscience. Political pressures and the Center's charter would seem to make this inevitable," said Kimball C. Atwood IV, M.D.[5]

A policy forum in Science stated,

We believe that NCCAM [National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine] funds proposals of dubious merit; its research agenda is shaped more by politics than by science; and it is structured by its charter in a manner that precludes an independent review of its performance...In view of the popularity of alternative therapies, it is appropriate to evaluate the efficacy and safety of selected treatments.

but research falls below the standards of other NIH institutes. NCCAM budget for 2005 was $123.1 million. The charter said that 12 of the 18 members of the NCCAM Advisory Council "shall be selected from among the leading representatives of the health and scientific disciplines...in the area of complementary and alternative medicine. Nine of the members shall be practitioners licensed in one or more of the major systems with which the Center is involved". Clinical trials of St. John's wort, echinacea, and saw palmetto have been published; none was more effective than placebo, but manufacturers said the studies were flawed, and these studies are unlikely to change practices. 70% said they would continue using a supplement that a government agency said was ineffective. NCCAM is funding a study of EDTA chelation therapy for coronary artery disease with 2,300 patients, even though smaller controlled trials have found chelation ineffective. Another negative trial won't modify the practice of individuals who choose to ignore existing negative evidence. NCCAM is also funding a trial of gemcitabine with the Gonzalez regimen for stage II to IV pancreatic cancer, in the belief that cancer is caused by a deficiency of pancreatic proteolytic enzymes that would normally eliminate toxins; severe adverse effects are associated with the Gonzalez regimen. No evidence in peer-reviewed journals supports the plausibility or efficacy of chelation therapy or the Gonzalez protocol[6] and a test of the protocol reported in 2009 found patients receiving the treatment had worse quality of life and died faster than conventionally treated counterparts.[7]