Wondering about “Alternative Medicine” ?

One website with useful information is Quackwatch (https://quackwatch.org), which provides an indispensable resource for those researching alternative medicine’s claims.
Quackwatch, which is operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D., is a network of Web sites and mailing lists maintained by the Center for Inquiry (CFI). The sites focus on health frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct. Their main goal is to provide quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere. To help visitors with special areas of interest, there are sites that cover autism, chiropractic, dentistry, multilevel marketing, and many other problematic areas. The Internet Health Pilot site provides links to hundreds of reliable health sites. Casewatch contains a large library of legal cases, licensing board actions, government sanctions, and regulatory actions against questionable medical products. All of these can be accessed through the “Visit Our Affiliated Sites” drop-down menu above. Their contents can be searched all at once through our search page. We also offer a Health Fraud Discussion List with more than 550 members and Consumer Health Digest, a free weekly e-mail newsletter that summarizes scientific reports, legislative developments, enforcement actions, and other information relevant to consumer protection and consumer decision-making. Its primary focus is on health, but occasionally it includes non-health scams.

Sorry, I just couldn't let this one go. The post was copied and pasted from the "Quack" website. I went there and selected a subject that I am knowledgeable in and in which I have years of first hand experience. The information provided ranged from misleading to outright false. I only selected this one subject but if it was any indication of the rest of the information provided I think this website may be engaged in a bit of "quackerie" themselves. One of the questions you can select is 'Who funds Quack?, which he doesn't answer. He only says it is "maintained by the Center for Inquiry (CFI) which is a 501 (c) (3) non profit that gets donations." Donations from who? Unfortunately in these days of disinformation articles and studies are designed to move your thinking to a desired result, which is usually for someone's financial gain. If you want to get to the truth, FOLLOW THE MONEY. In this case it would probably not be possible for the average person to do that. "Buyer beware."

This is what the Quackwatch website:

Who Funds Quackwatch?
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
February 1, 2021

Quackwatch is now maintained by the Center for Inquiry, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that strives to foster a secular society based on reason, science, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values.

Some people wonder whether Quackwatch or my other activities are a “front” for the American Medical Association, the pharmaceutical industry, the “medical establishment,” food companies, or whomever else they might not like. Nearly every week I get e-mails accusing me of this—and worse. Quite frankly, the idea is preposterous.

Neither I nor any authors of articles on this site have any conflicts of interest.
I have no financial tie to any commercial or industrial organization.
My viewpoints are not for hire. Even if they were, none of my imaginary funders would actually have a reason to hire me.
Standard medicine and “alternative medicine” do not actually compete for patient dollars. Well-designed studies have shown that most “alternative” methods are used in addition to—rather than instead of—standard methods.
The cost of operating Quackwatch and its affiliated sites from 1997 through 2019 was only a few thousand dollars a year. If donations and other income fell below what was needed, the rest came out of my pocket. Since 2020, the sites have been hosted by the Center for Inquiry. I still have modest research expenses that are covered either by donations or by me.

As to the financing of the Center for Inquiry you can download their Annual Report from here: https://centerforinquiry.org/about/annual-reports/

My question is, how many of the Alternative Medicine methods which Stephen Barrett liberally criticises has he actually tested himself. There are many people who are so extremely grateful to certain practitioners for giving them hope when they were not able to get it from the mainstream medical industry. If western medicine offerings were so effective and healthy, there wouldn’t be the need for alternatives. I would not suggest that Stephen Barrett is funded by the medical industry, rather that what informs him when he criticizes alternatives is subject to certain inflexible beliefs which perhaps could be remedied were he to consult with leading practitioners in the various fields of alternative medicine.
Wikipidea in the area of health and wellness also seems to be very biased. As an online encyclopaedia it should be giving an objective description of alternative healing (or preventative medicine) options. But instead it is very opinionated and gathers “evidence” (eg. quoting a scientist) to back up its point of view. It would be just as easy to find statements to underscore the efficacy of healing methods.
Many people in the alternative medicine world are not quacks, rather they have spent years dedicating themselves to their clients and their wellbeing.

I'm sad to say that, like many websites, Quackwatch was begun with the best of intentions, but it has not been maintained and updated in such a way as to make it useful any longer. Many of the posts date back 15-20 years, or lead to dead links.

As for Wikipedia, I have maintained since its inception that it is not a reliable source because its sources are not disclosed. Many of the AI-generated entries have the same issue. Unless you can see the underlying algorithm that leads to AI reports, you have no idea whether the sources are accurate or just numerous.

What I look for in reports of alternative and complementary therapies is both positive and negative experiences - not every therapy will work for every purpose, so no negatives means the promoter has culled or edited out any negatives. To test this, I have posted negative reviews for things that did not work for us (specific orthotic insoles, magnetic bracelets) and even those positive reviews appeared from that time, the negatives did not.

The other place I look is in Google Scholar - for unbiased studies (ie not by the promoter) of the therapy in question - even if it is a small one. If the treatment has been around for a bit, and no "outsider" has reported on it, I consider it suspect.

How do you evaluate alternative therapies before you try them?

PS I have used MANY including supplements, acupuncture, acupressure & cupping, mindfulness and meditation, with varying results based on the condition.