Quote Originally Posted by OakLeaf View Post
Indy, sounds wonderful.



I know I'm beating this drum to death, but there have been so many posts attacking so-called "alternative" therapies (meaning, therapies that were used successfully for thousands of years and have been suppressed more or less for the past hundred years) - and most of the bases for the attacks are (1) attacking classical, abandoned theories (similar to attacking north/western medicine because bleeding someone to balance their humours is patently unhelpful) and (2) claiming that they have poor success rates. I just have to re-emphasize that the success rates of other than north/western therapies, while they're admittedly often modest, are at least as good as the success rates of contemporary north/western therapies, and the intended devastation in lives (commonly known as "side effects") is nowhere near as great.

The subject comes to mind again because the literature has been reviewed yet again in the news.
Just because many modern medicines have questionable effectiveness does not mean that "alternative" therapies are effective. And think of all the wonders modern medicine has brought us. Like vaccines, antibiotics, birth control pills, surgery with anesthesia.

It is all about evidence. Tradition is not evidence. Old traditions, new medicine, all need to show that they are effective and that the benefits outweigh the risks.

http://whatstheharm.net/