Posted 10 June 2015
CAM remains, for the most part, “alternative” because its practitioners depend on subjective reckoning and user testimonials rather than scientific research to support what they do. They remain outside the scientific fold because most of their hypothesized mechanisms contradict well-established principles of biology, chemistry or physics. If CAM proponents could produce acceptable evidence to back up their methods, they would no longer be alternative-they would be absorbed by mainstream medicine.
I accidentally stumbled on this article while researching on another topic, ‘hidden’ in Internet Archive WayBackMachine. The article was written for publication in a special issue of Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine (1999). The author, Prof Barry L. Beyerstein, makes a number of arguments that are still pertinent today.… Read the rest