Alternative and evidence-based medicine
Testing of efficacy
Although proponents of alternative medicine often cite the large number of studies which have been performed, critics point out that there are no statistics on exactly how many of those studies were controlled, double blind, peer-reviewed experiments, or how many produced results supporting alternative medicine or parts thereof.[who?] They contend that many forms of alternative medicine are rejected by conventional medicine because the efficacy of the treatments has not been demonstrated through double-blind randomized controlled trials; in contrast, conventional drugs reach the market only after such trials have proved their efficacy.
Some argue that less research is carried out on alternative medicine because many alternative medicine techniques cannot be patented, and hence there is little financial incentive to study them. Drug research, by contrast, can be very lucrative, which has resulted in funding of trials by pharmaceutical companies. Many people, including conventional and alternative medical practitioners, contend that this funding has led to corruption of the scientific process for approval of drug usage, and that ghostwritten work has appeared in major peer-reviewed medical journals.[83][84] Increasing the funding for research of alternative medicine techniques was the purpose of the U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. NCCAM and its predecessor, the Office of Alternative Medicine, have spent more than $1 billion on such research since 1992.[85] The German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices Commission E has studied many herbal remedies for efficacy.[86]
Some skeptics of alternative practices point out that a person may attribute symptomatic relief to an otherwise ineffective therapy due to the placebo effect, the natural recovery from or the cyclical nature of an illness (the regression fallacy), or the possibility that the person never originally had a true illness.[87] CAM proponents point out this may also apply in cases where conventional treatments have been used. To this, CAM critics point out that this does not account for conventional medical success in double blind clinical trials. CAM proponents, however, do not typically question conventional medical successes revealed in double blind clinical trials.
source:wikipedia
