After publishing on challenges the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) is presenting to the integrative and functional medicine continuing medical education (CME) providers, I sent links to Graham McMahon, MD, MMSc, the organization’s president and CEO to request an interview. Multiple integrative CME providers with decades delivering integrative CME have lost or are facing potential loss of recognition. They have shared serious questions of transparency and intent on ACCME’s part. Some efforts to connect with ACCME have been rebuffed. Is integrative medicine being targeted? In my request for an interview, I provided McMahon some background on concerns. McMahon responded immediately, and affirmatively. We spoke for over 30 minutes via zoom on February 5, 2020. His responses included a surprising assertion that he believes the present ACCME is aligned with integrative medicine principles and practices. He committed to open dialogue in ACCME’s move “from cop to coach.” He underscored that the new proposed language is yet open for comment. I assembled our exchange in the following interview format and sought his edits and written replies to additional questions, then secured his approval prior to publication.
The recent global activity featured in the Integrator Blog News and Reports and re-posted by ISCMR, an international society of researchers in traditional, complementary, alternative and integrative medicine and health, has shown an unmistakable pattern: multiple governments are acting to remove recognition of homeopathy and certain of other complementary and integrative practice deemed “psuedo-scientific.” It’s not the only pattern. There hjave been recent positive governmental steps in Switzerland, India, the US and elsewhere. Still, the regulatory integrative ectomies in Spain, France, the UK, Australia, Canada – and here in the USA – are worth a collective heads up.
In July 2018, the Integrator published a series of articles challenging a JAMA Oncology study and stunning headlines that those using complementary therapies in cancer treatment die quicker. The integrative oncology community condemned the paper – though oddly falling short of calling for retraction. (In the Integrator series, I urged retraction.) After 7 months and 193,000 downloads of this story, the JAMA Oncology finally published letters from researchers in 4 nations that led an Medscape article on the reaction to quote a scientist claiming the five letters “completely destroy(ed) the pseudoscience article.” Why is it not retracted? One wonders when the integrative oncology community will demand respect.
Non-naturopathic doctors will have at least these reasons to explore the Special Focus Issue on Naturopathy. One is the review of the necessary scientific work by that whole system profession’s researchers to examine multimodal and whole person treatment. Its the best concerted effort of any integrative health profession. A second is to witness naturopathic medicine’s journey in the last 35 years to raise a scientific mission from scratch. A third is for insight into this still small profession’s outsized contributions to the evolution of integrative health. Their foundational work in linking science to natural health modalities is at its root. The February 2019 volume from JACM-Paradigm, Practice and Policy Advancing Integrative Health (The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine) is available in open access until March 20, 2019.