The National Institutes of Health National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), established to explore complementary and alternative healing practices in the context of rigorous science; to integrate scientifically proven CAM practices into conventional medicine; to train CAM researchers; and disseminate authoritative information to the public and professionals -- offers these definitions for alternative, complementary and integrative therapy.

Alternative therapy is used in place of conventional western medicine such as special diets to treat cancer instead of undergoing surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy recommended by a conventional doctor.

Complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine such as using aromatherapy to help lessen a patient's discomfort following surgery.

Integrative medicine combines both mainstream western medical treatment and CAM therapies for which there is known high-quality scientific evidence of safety and effectiveness.

Based on the 2002 edition of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics report, in the US, up to 62 percent of adults use some form of CAM. Although the survey indicated that people who use CAM come from all backgrounds -- according to the survey -- some people more likely than others to use CAM are women, those with higher educational levels, people who have been hospitalized in the past year, and former smokers when compared with current smokers or those who have never smoked.

Research has proven some CAM therapies to be valid, while finding others useless, and research continues. NCCAM offers information on research, clinical trials, highlights and alerts, health topic fact sheets, and the CAM Online Continuing Education Series, presented in eight chapters, for health care providers and the public to learn more about CAM.

Mike Adams starts Lying with statistics: How conventional medicine confuses the public by posing this question, "Which drug would you rather take? One that reduces your risk of cancer by 50 percent, or another drug that only eliminates cancer in one out of 100 people?" He believes most people would choose the drug that reduces the risk by half.

But both of these choices refer to the same drug and the same outcome. Curious? Here's how Adams explains it. Let's say a new breast cancer drug is being tested and there are 100 women in the clinical trial. At the beginning of the trial, two women are expected to get breast cancer. The other 98 women are not even expected to get breast cancer. Just two of them. At the end of the trial, only one woman gets breast cancer. If you interpret the results of this trial by absolute risk, then the reduction of breast cancer is one woman out of 100. However, if you interpret the results by relative risk -- that out of two women only one got breast cancer -- then the reduction of breast cancer with the new breast cancer drug being tested is an incredible 50 percent.

Remember, at the beginning of the trial, the researchers hypothesized that two women would get breast cancer and since only one did get breast cancer -- one out of two equals 50 percent. Now, if you are a pharmaceutical company who wants to extol the virtues of this new experimental drug, which risk -- absolute or relative -- would you use? Especially if you are trying to grab the interest and support of financial backers and the public? Relative -- of course. It sounds better. And it's true.

However, if you want to discredit a drug or therapy, you would use absolute risk. You would refer to the therapy in a framework of absolute risk. The one out of 100 statistical outcome, as in, it doesn't work very well -- only one out of 100 showed benefit from use. Adams points out this happens all the time when conventional medicine refers to claims made by alternative therapies in say, herbal remedies. And it's true. Nothing about absolute or relative risk is untrue but each can give a vastly different impression of what is true. Before you read another health news headline about another research study or new drug, go read his commentary in its entirety. It will make you pause -- it will make you think twice -- it will prompt you to ask, "what are we talking here -- absolute or relative risk?"

Cancer Monthly will be hosting its first teleconference for cancer survivors to present information for patients and their family members on alternative therapies and integrative medicine. The free teleconference, which will take place on Thursday June 29, 2006 at 8:00 PM EST, will feature four cancer survivors as they share their experiences of using alternative and integrative therapies as part of cancer treatment and cancer survivorship. Three of the featured guest speakers will be:

• Paul Kraus -- In 1997, Kraus was diagnosed with advanced peritoneal mesothelioma. He was sent home to die. He created his own alternative path to healing. Nine years later, he is enjoying a good quality of life.
• Madeleen Herreshoff  -- In 1991, Herreshoff was diagnosed with aggressive poorly differentiated invasive breast cancer. Three years later, she had a local recurrence of her cancer. She blended mainstream and alternative therapies to create her own path to healing.
• Ann Fonfa -- In 1993, Fonfa was diagnosed with invasive lobular breast cancer. She suffered recurrences from 1995 to 2001 with 25 tumors overall -- 14 of which appeared on the chest wall. She created her own path to healing, choosing a combination of chemical sensitivity/special needs and her own readings of research studies. Fonfa is also the webmistress of The Annie Appleseed Project.

If you are interested in participating in this free teleconference, the organizers of the event suggest you sign-up early as space is limited.