Should there be regulations on the use of the terms alternative and complimentary "medicine"?

  • Alternative "medicine" that has been proven to work is just called "medicine".

    The highly lucrative and misleading nature of alternative and complimentary "medicines" results in a misinformed public spending vast amounts of money on products which have no clinical benefit in the majority of people. Vitamin supplements will not help you unless you have a vitamin deficiency. Homoeopathy is quantifiable stupidity. If it had been demonstrated to work, it would just be called medicine. Because it doesn't work, it's called alternative or complimentary. However, the term "medicine" is misleading and use of the term should be restricted to products that actually help people.

  • "Medicine" is a non-specific term:

    There are two types of medicine, ones that have physical effects and others that have psychological effects, and we know them basically as "The Real Stuff" and "Placebos", but alternative medicine, esp. In places like China where it is used very commonly, has a lot of value and a number of conditions can be tackled by placebo effect and some OTC herbs and vitamins are indeed effective even if not endorsed due to a lack of clinical study.

    The problem with isolating the term "Medicine" to only things that have clinical studies behind them is that you have issues with basically who the authority is. Not all clinical studies are done so under a govt. Authority so even if studies do exist for the product or procedure that doesn't mean the govt. Backs it. I'm pretty sure acupuncture is one such thing. We know it works but in many countries (obviously not all) it's not considered a standardized and necessary procedure.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.