“An explosion of alternative medicines in France!”: media-biased polyphonic epidemiology vs. evidence-based data

Abstract Background: The media and several French official organizations report an “explosion” in the use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) in France, possibly “boosted” by the Covid-19 pandemic. In addition, the French Miviludes (Mission of Vigilance and Fight Against Sectarian Aberrations) routinely asserts in its yearly reports “a dramatic uptick” in sectarian aberrations in the health sector. However, data supporting those assertions are either scant or rarely compared with data from previous years to properly apprehend an evolution. This paper aims to analyze existing data in this field and to examine in which domain (population-based survey, official reports, media) “increases” or “explosion” might be observed. We compared the data from France and Switzerland. In fact, no clear regulatory policy on CAM exists in France, whereas the Swiss population voted to include CAM into the Swiss Constitution in 2009. Method: Surveys documenting the reported usage of CAM in both France and Switzerland were analyzed. Health-related sectarian aberrations were analyzed based on yearly reports of the French Miviludes and its Swiss counterpart (Inter-Cantonal Information Center on Beliefs). Then, the communication in the media on CAM was analyzed in the French media and in the scientific literature published in both countries. Three time periods were considered to apprehend the claimed boost of the Covid-19 pandemic. Results: Our comprehensive analysis of available information sources does not suggest an “explosion” in CAM use or related sectarian misconduct. Reported CAM use in France was 39% in 2007 and later surveys did not find higher percentage. Reported CAM use increased from 24% to 28.9% between 2007 and 2017 in Switzerland. Referrals about health-related sectarian aberrations regularly increased until 2017 and then remained stable in France; they regularly decreased in Switzerland. Evidence for a pandemic boost was weak. In contrast, a steady increase was observed in the number of mentions in media of CAM. Conclusion: Our analyses indicate a media-skewed, polyphonic epidemiology, which is not supported by available data. Health care specialists, Official organizations, journalists and politicians should become aware of biases concerning CAM and foster a more informed and balanced discourse regarding these practices.