Alternative Medicine is one of the strongest competitors of science. It defiles everything that science has fundamentally proven. As the battle between different worlds of medicine continues, arguments have been surfacing on the extremities of both causes.
A review on the effectiveness of alternative medicine states that to avoid confusion, this treatment should be classified to three different categories: genuine, experimental and questionable.
Genuine alternative medicines are those which had been scientifically proven and have met the criteria for safety and effectiveness; experimental alternative medicines are with plausible reason to deem effective and are under investigation; questionable alternative medicines are those which cannot adhere to scientific reasoning and are deemed moot and academic.
Some methods fit in more than one category, depending on the claims made for them. In some instances, fraudulent medicines are hiding their quackery under the label “alternative” since the term is considered with merit and should be treated with respect and equal consideration. Homeopathy is one of the forms of questionable medicine which has formed thousands of enthusiasts over the years.
Medical practitioners have firmly been resolute on their stand against alternative medicines stating that there are no two kinds of medicines, one conventional and the other unconventional. There is only scientifically proven, one which has been evidence-based supported by solid data and backed up by experiments or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking. Claims on western or eastern healing are also irrelevant. Albeit recognizing different practitioners and skills, capabilities and nature of experience, the focus should be on the patients and their safety.
On the other hand, homeopathic practitioners also have their own complaints on scientists and their practices.
A heated argument among members of The Peterson Group, a non-profit organization providing relevant information on the effectiveness of alternative, complementary and integrative medicines on role of science in medicine and the rules implemented on its fundamentals. Under that same fundamental, people making claims bears the burden of proof. Scientists or those who claim to be have the responsibility to conduct suitable testing and studies and report them in sufficient detail. With the arguments surfacing, it seems that instead of living up to its definition of being the “study of knowledge”, science has been boxed in a definite regulation controlled by bias and prejudice. Scientists use anecdotes and testimonials to promote their practices and political maneuver to keep regulatory agencies at bay instead of conducting scientific studies.
The debate has been endless since it has begun before anyone can remember. Still, both forms are thriving and seem to have learned to co-exist. Say for example the emergence of medical clinics beside homeopathic clinics and both their interaction. These kinds of set-ups are prevalent especially in developing cities like Bangkok, Thailand, Seoul, South Korea and Jakarta, Indonesia where culture shakes hands with modernization.