In my experience, the range of health care modalities should be understood and applied each to the situation for which they are best suited. Mainstream medicine is best suited for emergent care or disease management (not resolution.) It currently is used as the "hammer" for all things health related and it just isn't suited for that since it is supported predominately by either pharmaceuticals or surgery - two very invasive techniques.
The "alternative" therapies, such as chiropractics, homeopathy, acupuncture, naturopathy, TCM, reiki, etc., are not satisfactorily scientifically proven because they don't necessarily follow scientific principles. Science is based on observations that can be measured or detected. If the therapy works at a level not yet able to be measured or detected through modern technology, you will only ever have anecdotal evidence to back it up.
I find it unfortunate that the scientific-based "mainstream" medical community (generally) offhandedly dismisses anything outside of their purview as "quackery" and potentially dangerous to people's health out of pure ignorance due to the faith put in their own systems of proof. If anything, they should be more concerned with the significantly greater (and scientifically-proven) negative impacts of their own chief modes of treatment, pharma and scalpels.
I'm not suggesting mainstream medicine is "evil" and should be avoided at all costs in favour of a certain alternative therapy. Just use it for the purposes to which it is best suited.
__________________
zk
|