The World Health Organization held the First WHO Traditional Medicine Global Summit this weekend. Unfortunately, its claims of being "evidence-based" aside, the conference followed the WHO's usual pattern of serving as propaganda, not science. The summit was one-sided, organized by believers with the only speakers being believers, to promote a predetermined policy goal of promoting traditional medicine and justify "integrating" it with...
The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health recently released its latest 5 year strategic plan. It's basically the same as the last strategic plan, but with one new addition. It's not really a new addition, but it signals a resurrection of an old trope about "integrating" quackery with science-based medicine.
Quackery is alive, well, and government-supported in India, as demonstrated by a terrible study of Ayurveda.
In 2017, UC Irvine promised that the Susan Samueli Integrative Health Institute would be "rigorously evidence-based". A recent review discovers plenty of pseudoscience.
Ayurvedic practitioners' attempt to become licensed health care professionals in Colorado failed an initial review but that is unlikely to stop them from pursuing their goal. Ayurveda is pseudoscience and its practices can be dangerous. Unfortunately, that is no barrier to state licensing.
The Textbook of Natural Medicine reveals what students of naturopathy are taught. It claims to be a scientific presentation, but it reveals just how unscientific naturopathy is. It mixes good science with bad science, pseudoscience, outright errors of fact, vitalism, philosophy, ancient history, superstition, gullibility, misrepresentations, metaphysics, religion, hearsay, opinion, and anecdotes.
A hospital in India offers to cure cancer in 11 days with Ayurveda and cow therapy, giving patients a drink of desi cow milk, yogurt, ghee, urine, and dung. It's very unlikely that cow therapy can cure cancer; but in another sense, the author of the book Holy Cancer says it "healed" him.
It has been our position that science is the most effective means of determining medical treatments that work and whose benefits outweigh their risks. Those who promote pseudoscientific or prescientific medicine, however, frequently appeal to other ways of knowing, often ancient knowledge from other cultures and pointing out deficiencies in SBM to justify promoting their treatments. Do their justifications hold water?