“Alternative” Medicine More Hype Than Hope

More Hype Than Hope
  • Stephen Barrett
Part of the Biomedical Ethics Reviews book series (BER)


“Alternative medicine” has become the politically correct term for questionable practices formerly labeled quack and fraudulent. During the past few years, most media reports have contained no critical evaluation and have featured the views of proponents and their satisfied clients. These happenings are part of a general societal trend toward rejection of science as a method of determining truths.

Under the rules of science, proponents who make the claims bear the burden of proof Instead of subjecting their work to scientific standards, “alternative proponents ” would like to change the rules by which they are judged and regulated. Instead of conducting scientific studies, they use anecdotes and testimonials to promote their practices, and political maneuvering to keep regulatory agencies at bay.

To avoid confusion, “alternative ”methods should be classified as genuine, experimental, or questionable. Blurring these distinctions enables promoters of quackery to argue that because some practices labeled “alternative” have merit, the rest deserve equal consideration and respect. Enough is known, however, to conclude that most questionable “alternatives” are worthless.

This chapter provides a critical analysis based on more than 25 years of investigation by the author. Each approach it describes has at least one of the following characteristics:
  1. 1.

    Its rationale or underlying theory has no scientific basis;

  2. 2.

    It has not been demonstrated safe and effective by well-designed studies;

  3. 3.

    It is deceptively promoted; or

  4. 4.

    Its practitioners are not qualified to make appropriate diagnoses.



Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Royal Jelly Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Transcendental Meditation Homeopathic Remedy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Sampson, W. (1966) Antiscience trends in the rise of the “alternative medicine” movement, in Gross, P. R., Levitt, N., Lewis, M. W., (eds.) (1996). The Flight from Science and Reason. New York Academy of Sciences, NY, pp. 188–197.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marshall, E. (1994) The politics of alternative medicine. Science 265, 2000–2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Norheim, J. A. and Fennebe, V. (1995) Adverse effects of acupuncture. Lancet 345, 1576.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kurtz, P., Alcock, J., et al. (1988) Testing psi claims in China: visit by a CSICOP delegation. Skeptical Inquirer 12, 364–375.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sampson, W., et al. (1991) Acupuncture: the position paper of the National Council Against Health Fraud. Clin. J. Pain 7, 162–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sharma, H. M., Brihaspati, D. T., and Chopra, D. (1991) Maharishi ayur-veda: modern insights into ancient medicine. JAMA 265, 2633–2636.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Total Health Catalog Vol. 1 (1994) Maharishi Ayur-Ved Products International, Inc., Lancaster, MA.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    World Plan Executive Council (1986) The transcendental meditation television special: home video version.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chopra, D., et al. (1992) On Creating Health (audiotape). Maharishi Ayur-Veda Products International, Lancaster, MA.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Magner, G. (1995) Chiropractic: The Victim’s Perspective, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Menninger, B. (1996) Student policies questioned in school verdict. Kansas City Bus. J. July 12–18, pp. 1, 42.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Assendelft, W. J. J., et al. (1996) The effectiveness of chiropractic for treatment of low back pain: an update and attempt at statistical pooling. J. Manip. Physiolog. Ther. 19, 499–507.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aker, P. D. and Martel, J. (1996) Maintenance care. Topics Clin. Chiropr. 3 (4), 32–35.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jewett, D. L., Fein, G., and Greenberg, M. H. (1990) A double-blind study to determine food sensitivity. N Engl. J. Med. 323, 429–433.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    American Academy of Allergy and Immunology (1986) Position statements on clinical ecology and candidiasis hypersensitivity syndrome. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 78, 269–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jensen, B. (1980) Iridology Simplified, Iridologists International, Escondido, CA.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Simon, A., et al. (1979) An evaluation of iridology. JAMA 242, 1385–1387.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Knipschild, P. (1988) Looking for gall bladder disease in the patient’s iris. Brit. Med. J. 297, 1578–1581.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosa, L. (1966) Survey of Therapeutic Touch “Research. ” Front Range Skeptics, Loveland, CO.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosa, E. C., et al. (1997) A close look at therapeutic touch, in press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    American Cancer Society (1992) Questionable methods of cancer management. American Cancer Society, NY.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Green, S. (1992) “Antineoplastons”: an unproved cancer therapy. JAMA 267, 2924–2928.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Green, S. (1992) A critique of the rationale for cancer treatment with coffee enemas and diet. JAMA 268, 3224–3227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Austin, S., Dale, D. B., and DeKadt, S. (1994) Long-term follow-up of cancer patients using Contreras, Hoxsey and Gerson therapies. J. Naturopath. Med. 5 (1), 74–76.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1990) Unconventional Cancer Treatments, OTA-H-405, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moertel, C., et al. (1982) A clinical trial of amygdalin (Laetrile) in the treatment of human cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 306, 201–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cassileth, B. R., et al. (1991) Survival and quality of life among patients receiving unproven as compared with conventional cancer therapy. N. Engl. J. Med. 324, 1180–1985.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gellert, G., Maxwell, R. M., and Siegel, B. S. (1993) Survival of breast cancer patients receiving adjunctive psychosocial support therapy: a 10-year follow-up study. J. Clin. Oncol. 11, 66–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Miller, D. R., et al. (1997) Phase I/II trial of the safety and efficacy of shark cartilage (Cartilade) in the treatment of advanced cancers (abstract). Proc. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol.,in press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    DeWys, W. D. (1982) How to evaluate a new treatment for cancer. Your Patient and Cancer 2 (5), 31–36.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Barrett

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations