WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy Sparks Scientific Debate

A BMJ editorial questions WHO’s traditional medicine strategy, while experts argue it supports stronger research rather than weaker evidence.

A recent BMJ editorial has questioned the World Health Organization (WHO)‘s Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025–2034, arguing that traditional and complementary medicine should meet the same scientific standards as conventional medical treatments before being integrated into healthcare systems. The editorial has also prompted responses from researchers and traditional medicine experts, highlighting an ongoing debate over how evidence should guide the use of these therapies (1^✔ ✔Trusted Source
WHO’s misguided push for complementary and alternative medicine

Go to source

).
The editorial’s authors caution that integrating therapies lacking robust evidence could weaken confidence in evidence-based medicine, expose patients to ineffective or unsafe interventions, and divert healthcare resources from treatments with proven benefits. In contrast, several experts responding in BMJ argue that the WHO strategy aims to strengthen scientific evidence and regulatory oversight rather than lower research standards.

Why Has WHO’s Traditional Medicine Strategy Been Criticized?

The editorial, authored by researchers from India, Canada, China, and the Netherlands, examines the WHO Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025–2034, which seeks to help countries strengthen regulation, improve research, enhance safety, and support evidence-informed integration of traditional medicine into health systems. The authors argue that although these objectives appear appropriate, the strategy could inadvertently legitimize therapies before adequate evidence of their safety and effectiveness is available.

The editorial also argues that healthcare interventions, regardless of whether they are conventional or traditional, should be evaluated using the same rigorous scientific methods. According to the authors, randomized controlled trials should remain the standard for establishing efficacy and safety before therapies become part of routine healthcare.

Concerns Over Evidence Standards

The authors note that a WHO survey found that 95% of responding Member States identified insufficient research evidence as the main barrier to integrating complementary and alternative medicine into healthcare. They argue that despite increased research funding and thousands of published studies, substantial evidence gaps remain for many traditional medicine systems, including questions surrounding efficacy and safety.

The editorial further raises concerns that broader acceptance of therapies supported mainly by observational or real-world evidence, rather than randomized controlled trials where feasible, may blur the distinction between evidence-based healthcare and interventions that have not been adequately validated. The authors also warn about potential risks including delayed use of proven treatments, herb-drug interactions, product contamination, and inconsistent regulation.

Experts Defend WHO’s Approach

The editorial has generated several rapid responses in The BMJ, including one led by Rabinarayan Acharya, Director General of the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS). The authors acknowledged that patient safety, scientific rigour, and evidence integrity are essential but argued that the editorial presents only one perspective of a broader scientific and public health discussion.

According to the response, the WHO strategy focuses on strengthening the evidence base for traditional medicine before expanding its integration into health systems. The authors state that observational studies and real-world data are intended to complement, rather than replace, randomized controlled trials, reflecting evolving approaches to evidence generation in healthcare.

The response also argues that the editorial groups diverse systems such as Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, Traditional Chinese Medicine, and Homoeopathy into a single category despite differences in their philosophical foundations, regulation, biological plausibility, and available scientific evidence. The authors contend that each system should be evaluated independently on its own evidence.

Delhi Declaration Supports Evidence-Based Integration

The discussion follows the adoption of the Delhi Declaration on Traditional Medicine at the Second WHO Global Summit on Traditional Medicine. The declaration emphasizes that policy decisions should be guided by scientific evidence while respecting diverse medical traditions. It also encourages countries to strengthen research, improve regulatory systems, promote safe and effective products, and responsibly integrate traditional medicine where supported by evidence.

India has continued to expand its role in this field through the WHO Global Traditional Medicine Centre in Jamnagar, Gujarat, established in collaboration with WHO. The initiative aims to promote research, innovation, quality standards, and international collaboration while building a stronger scientific evidence base for traditional medicine.

Reference:

1. WHO’s misguided push for complementary and alternative medicine – (https://www.bmj.com/content/393/bmj-2026-100062)

Source-Medindia