The term "alternative medicine" has become confusing. Exactly what defines a treatment as "alternative," and whether or not there is a line between alternative and traditional medicine is unclear. The American Medical Association published a review of the role of alternative medicine in 1998. In this review the AMA made the following statement:
"There is no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data, or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking. Whether a therapeutic practice is "Eastern" or "Western," is unconventional or mainstream, or involves mind-body techniques or molecular genetics is largely irrelevant except for historical purposes and cultural interest."
This is an important concept as patients should understand that all medicine, be it "alternative" or "traditional," can be scientifically studied and validated. For example, there is no reason a study of the effect of magnets on circulation cannot be performed. Unfortunately, these types of studies are seldom performed due to lack of funding or interest from those in a position to examine these techniques. It is in large part because of differences of economic and political forces that a dichotomy between alternative and traditional medicine has arisen.
It should also be acknowledged that research is not being entirely neglected. A search of the medical literature will show that more articles appear in the scientific literature with the search term 'acupuncture' than appear with the term 'hip replacement.' But unlike traditional medical practices regulated by professional and governmental organizations, many "alternative" practices enter the marketplace no matter what the data suggests. Therefore, entrepreneurs willing to say anything to make a buck will begin to make unsubstantiated claims. A perfect example is with glucosamine and arthritis. Early studies showed a benefit in short-term health perception when individuals with arthritis regularly consumed this supplement. Certainly this is good news, but instead of being pushed into longer-term studies with more patients, the supplement was marketed as a "cure" for arthritis; a completely baseless claim. While glucosamine likely has a role in arthritis treatment, the jury is still out, and its role is certainly not the cure the marketers would like the public to believe.
Ultimately, consumers are responsible for researching so-called alternative treatments. I do not want to insinuate that these treatments are not beneficial; in many cases patients find relief only when they seek alternative care. But patients must also understand that these practices are unregulated. The FDA does not review the research, and the research is often lacking in quality and quantity. I would recommend that when researching "alternative" treatments, you look in the direction of well-respected Internet sites, instead of independent entrepreneurs. Stay away from testimonial claims and people who are marketing their own products. Use the following guide to screen resources found on the Internet:
