“Alternative” Medicine More Hype Than Hope
“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.
Its rationale or underlying theory has no scientific basis;
It has not been demonstrated safe and effective by well-designed studies;
It is deceptively promoted; or
Its practitioners are not qualified to make appropriate diagnoses.
KeywordsChronic Fatigue Syndrome Royal Jelly Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Transcendental Meditation Homeopathic Remedy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- 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
- 7.The Total Health Catalog Vol. 1 (1994) Maharishi Ayur-Ved Products International, Inc., Lancaster, MA.Google Scholar
- 8.World Plan Executive Council (1986) The transcendental meditation television special: home video version.Google Scholar
- 9.Chopra, D., et al. (1992) On Creating Health (audiotape). Maharishi Ayur-Veda Products International, Lancaster, MA.Google Scholar
- 10.Magner, G. (1995) Chiropractic: The Victim’s Perspective, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY.Google Scholar
- 11.Menninger, B. (1996) Student policies questioned in school verdict. Kansas City Bus. J. July 12–18, pp. 1, 42.Google Scholar
- 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.Aker, P. D. and Martel, J. (1996) Maintenance care. Topics Clin. Chiropr. 3 (4), 32–35.Google Scholar
- 16.Jensen, B. (1980) Iridology Simplified, Iridologists International, Escondido, CA.Google Scholar
- 19.Rosa, L. (1966) Survey of Therapeutic Touch “Research. ” Front Range Skeptics, Loveland, CO.Google Scholar
- 20.Rosa, E. C., et al. (1997) A close look at therapeutic touch, in press.Google Scholar
- 21.American Cancer Society (1992) Questionable methods of cancer management. American Cancer Society, NY.Google Scholar
- 22.Green, S. (1992) “Antineoplastons”: an unproved cancer therapy. JAMA 267, 2924–2928.Google Scholar
- 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.Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1990) Unconventional Cancer Treatments, OTA-H-405, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- 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.DeWys, W. D. (1982) How to evaluate a new treatment for cancer. Your Patient and Cancer 2 (5), 31–36.Google Scholar