Im a little bit surprised by this question, and particularly by its presence on this forum, where so many discussions center around the lack of funding for avenues of treatment that seem promising, and the possible bias of influential researchers within this field of study.
Youre asking for proof of alternative methods when we have precious little proof for any methods at all, and the methods for which proof purportedly does exist do not appear to be helpful in many cases and may, in fact, do more harm than good. So we should all be asking this same question about our treatments of choice.
Assuming that what youre seeking as proof would be peer-reviewed studiesand particularly RCTspublished in respected western journals, Id have to say that youll find very little, and that there are a myriad of reasons for this.
By far the biggest reason is that there will only be studies where there is money to fund them. Currently, the vast majority of funding goes into research that is developed through the traditional, Western medical channels, either through governments or the large pharmaceutical companies. Most of these will focus on treatments that have potential to have some economic impactin other words, if a treatment is found to be useful, someone can make a profit from it, or someone can use it to justify not spending more money on patients than is already being spent.
This is not always the case, but we see from many discussions here in this forum how hard it is to direct research efforts on the basis of promising science alone. So to base our trust solely on this set of outcomes and not allow other possibilities seems a bit narrow to me.
I work in a medical research department for a large university. One of the things I have learned is that, for each scrap of information we develop through research, there are vast unanswered questions. The big joke in medical research is that the end result of all research is that more research is needed. Medicine, even traditional western medicine, will likely always be functioning primarily in a best-and-most-educated guess mode of operation. We simply do not have the evidence-based research needed to do more than this in a large majority of treatments and cases.
That is not to say that our best guesses are not often very good and effective, but do remember that we treated peptic ulcers for decades through diet alone, believing our food choices to be the cause, and that the researchers who discovered that h. pylori causes ulcers were not taken seriously for a long time. I believe one of them even had to infect and then cure himself in order to prove to others that these results were sound. Antibiotics for an ulcer would have been considered an alternative treatment just a few years ago.
So, in the alternative treatment bin we have, among other things, Traditional Chinese Medicine. For the purposes of full disclosure, yes, this is the treatment method I have chosen. I chose it because my physician, trained in both modalities, was straight enough with me from the outset to tell me that Western medicine cannot offer me much relief (which I already knew), and was willing to prescribe from the large array of herbal formula options available through TCM. The results so far are encouraging enough for me to continue with the treatment.
Traditional Chinese Medicine, as a system of medicine, evolved quite differently from our Western approach, and it views the human body and disease states in a very different way. I dont know if that is right or wrong, but the one thing that TCM has going for it which the Western approach does not is a very long history of close observation and treatment refinement.
Many of the formulas available through TCM date back thousands of years. Chinese doctors kept notes about the efficacy of their prescriptions. Is this as good as a RCT? Of course not. But, given that Im not likely to ever see RCTs on any of the ingredients in the TCM formula I use, and that Id like to feel well while Im still young enough to enjoy it (Im 52), and that nothing has been provided by western medicine that gave me much relief, I have decided that-- for me-- its best to seek my own proof in the pudding, as it were.
This is not to say that there arent plenty of cautions to be issued with regard to TCM or, indeed, any alternative therapies. The medicines themselves can be altered or contaminated, as there is little quality control, so one needs to shop around for reputable manufacturers and stick with brands that work. Other therapies may be out-and-out fraud. One needs to apply a measure of caution, common sense and reason to any possible treatment. If it seems outlandish, it very well may be. Caveat emptor.
For myself, Im happy to acknowledge that I dont have all the answers. For example, I personally dont think that true homeopathic medicine makes a lot of sense, yet I have to recognize that the ideas which gave us effective immunotherapy treatments for allergy patients were germinated in the old homeopathic methods of diluting a disease-causing substance and exposing a patient to the dilution. We can also see the seeds of vaccination in this old practice. So even from within this area of questionable medicine, some important treatments have arisen. And there, I suppose, can be found some proof of the Western variety, as there are plenty of studies to back up the effectiveness of both of those treatments.
So, to me, we live, and we learn, and we might find the most amazing things in the strangest, most unexpected places. I really dislike the idea of taking things out of the bag of possibilities just because they dont fit within one world view.