Here is Edzard Ernst's findings on the subjects of papers from a conference on integrative medicine:
mind-body therapies were the top subject with 49 papers, followed by acupuncture (44), herbal medicine (37), integrative medicine (36), chiropractic and other manual therapies (26), TCM (19), methodological issues (16), animal and other pre-clinical investigations (15) and Tai Chi (5). The rest of the abstracts were on a diverse array of other subjects. There was not a single paper on a conventional therapy and only 4 focussed on risk assessments.
It seems like he has a broader definition of "alternative medicine" than you do
@Dolphin. So I am not responding to your point of view so much as to Dr Ernst's.
From Edzard Ernst, as quoted in the first post:
integrative medicine is not about the ‘best of both worlds’ (i. e. the best alternative medicine has to offer integrated with the best conventional medicine offers) – the slogan by which advocates of integrative medicine usually try to ‘sell’ their dubious approach to us. It is almost exclusively about alternative therapies which advocates of integrative medicine aim to smuggle into mainstream healthcare.
While this is entirely true, I disagree that the advocates of "alternative" medicine are somehow being sneaky or deceptive.
First, Dr. Ernst suggests that the phrase "best of both worlds" is misleading, since alternative practitioners just want to replace conventional treatments with their own stuff. This ignores the many areas of traditional medicine that are not challenged at all by alternative medicine. Most tests are use by alternative and conventional medical doctors alike--there just isn't a replacement for a CBC or serum liver enzymes tests. And even the most alternative-minded person doesn't want a surgeon to give them a new kidney using homeopathic disinfectant (I don't think there is such a thing). So while two reasonable people can differ on what medical practices do in fact comprise the "best of both worlds," I don't think the phrase is used deceptively, because they want to replace part of the mainstream model, but not all of it.
Second, Dr. Ernst argues that the phrase "best of both worlds" is misleading because the "alternative medicine" banner is essentially a one-way exchange where alternative medicine becomes more mainstream, but mainstream medicine does not spread to the alternative community. I think this misses the point, though, which is money: mainstream medicine is--for the most part--covered by insurance or national health care. Alternative therapies--at least in the USA--are not. Groups on the outside want to become accepted by the establishment because they want access to the establishment's funds, not because they want an equal exchange with the institution that has usually ignored and mistreated them. When we petition the CDC, most of us have a pretty definite idea of how much funding the psychosocial model should get. Minority populations usually have a much better understanding of the majority population than visa versa, and this plays out in medicine too: Most alternative practitioners have to have some understanding of mainstream medicine in order to practice, but mainstream medical doctors don't have to know anything about alternative medicine.
So I think the idea of equal exchange is a red herring--it's a false standard.
In the end, it seems like the alt med people want into conventional medicine's big tent, and the author doesn't want to let them in--which I think is a valid viewpoint. I just wish he'd leave out the defamatory insinuations and say something like "alternative medical claims should be held to the same standard that drugmakers must meet before releasing their drugs." I'm not sure that I agree with that, but I think it could be a good discussion.
OK, this next part is in response to your perspective Dolphin
![Smile :) :)]()
.
If it was clearer to people that they weren't just one alternative therapy away from normal functioning, they might as I say donate more and/or fund-raise more for research (or the family might donate more and/or fund-raise more).
Wouldn't that sentence make just as much sense without the word "alternative?" You made it clear that by "alternative" you don't mean herbs, vitamins or nutrients, but I think we can get caught up in the possibility of improvement through those alone, not to mention more conventional-but-still-poorly-understood treatments like valcyte.