So here comes another thread about CAIM where most everybody doesn't seem to have gotten much education on the subject.
#1: from all the alternative or integrative medicine courses I've taken, I haven't seen convincing evidence that homeopathy is anything more than placebo.
#2: many CAIM (complimentary, alternative, and integrative medicine) modalities are similarly ineffective, relying only on placebo: prayer, spiritual rites, spells, Reiki (my own mother swears by it, but I'm really not convinced- I even went on and centered a research paper on Reiki, and still found no substantial evidence as to its credibility).
#3: most importantly, NO, we do not simply add all of working CAIM to standard medicine. Why? Western medical schools have tried-and-true pathology and treatment protocols that they are very reluctant to change, especially with regard to the inclusion of techniques not developed by the modern scientific establishment. Many effective CAIM modalities, such as Chinese medicine, acupuncture, some Ayurveda, and yoga, to name a few, simply don't make it into the curriculum and thus are not represented by conventional biomedicine.
Any time someone presumes that we just automatically include everything that works into our scientific paradigm or our health establishment, they really underestimate how resistant large institutions are to change from the outside. In the US, NIH really has most of the controls when it comes to what gets funded for research and what gets to be taught to conventional doctors. Its budget share for CAIM research is about 2%. I can't comment on whether that is too high or too low, because I can't presume to be an expert. I can say that that is by all means a marginal amount. As long as working medical modalities remain marginal, the term "alternative medicine" has credence.
There are institutions that try to combine conventional biomedicine with non-Western alternative techniques, such as the Center for East-West Medicine at UCLA. I recommend you check them out if you want to learn more about this kind of stuff.
#1: from all the alternative or integrative medicine courses I've taken, I haven't seen convincing evidence that homeopathy is anything more than placebo.
#2: many CAIM (complimentary, alternative, and integrative medicine) modalities are similarly ineffective, relying only on placebo: prayer, spiritual rites, spells, Reiki (my own mother swears by it, but I'm really not convinced- I even went on and centered a research paper on Reiki, and still found no substantial evidence as to its credibility).
#3: most importantly, NO, we do not simply add all of working CAIM to standard medicine. Why? Western medical schools have tried-and-true pathology and treatment protocols that they are very reluctant to change, especially with regard to the inclusion of techniques not developed by the modern scientific establishment. Many effective CAIM modalities, such as Chinese medicine, acupuncture, some Ayurveda, and yoga, to name a few, simply don't make it into the curriculum and thus are not represented by conventional biomedicine.
Any time someone presumes that we just automatically include everything that works into our scientific paradigm or our health establishment, they really underestimate how resistant large institutions are to change from the outside. In the US, NIH really has most of the controls when it comes to what gets funded for research and what gets to be taught to conventional doctors. Its budget share for CAIM research is about 2%. I can't comment on whether that is too high or too low, because I can't presume to be an expert. I can say that that is by all means a marginal amount. As long as working medical modalities remain marginal, the term "alternative medicine" has credence.
There are institutions that try to combine conventional biomedicine with non-Western alternative techniques, such as the Center for East-West Medicine at UCLA. I recommend you check them out if you want to learn more about this kind of stuff.