First off, thanks to Abel Pharmboy (a pseudonym) at the blog Terra Sigillata, whose blog post you should read.

Although you wouldn't know it from the original diary, the AP article is in fact critical about the free pass (scientifically, and on a regulatory basis) given to "alternative medicine". For example:

An Associated Press review of dozens of studies and interviews with more than 100 sources found an underground medical system operating in plain sight, with a different standard than the rest of medical care, and millions of people using it on blind faith.

This hits the nail on the head regarding how people address many "alternative" therapies: they have faith that they work, regardless of the evidence. And the AP article points out that big businesses profit on this faith, without even being required to show the safety that "Big Pharma" does. As Abel says:

Like "Big Pharma," there really is such an industry as "Big Woo" that co-opts a little science with classic marketing techniques: "Herbals are medicines," with good and bad effects, said Bruce Silverglade of the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest. Contrary to their little-guy image, many of these products are made by big businesses. Ingredients and their countries of origin are a mystery to consumers. They are marketed in ways that manipulate emotions, just like ads for hot cars and cool clothes. Some make claims that average people can't parse as proof of effectiveness or blather, like "restores cell-to-cell communication."

The AP article is quite even-handed. It points out that:

Mainstream medicine and prescription drugs have problems, too. Popular drugs such as the painkillers Vioxx and Bextra have been pulled from the market after serious side effects emerged once they were widely used by consumers. But at least there are regulatory systems, guideline-setting groups and watchdog agencies helping to keep traditional medicine in line. The safety net for alternative medicine is far flimsier.

I stand by what I said elsewhere:

"Alternative Medicine", when proven to work, is simply called "medicine". "Alternative medicine" is otherwise treatments that are either: (a) unproven, in which case their supporters should seek definitive trials comparing them to standard treatments, or no treatments at all; (b) proven not to work, in which case those who promote their use are at best uninformed or at worst quacks and frauds; (c) unprovable, because they rely on some supernatural effect. (Often, in this last case, proponents invoke the word "quantum" in explaining the unobservable/unmeasurable effects.)

There are problems in considering "alternative medicine" as a different animal than medicine. One major problem is that it leads to different standards of proof that something works. This has been unfortunately institutionalized the NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Here's the conclusion from an article in the journal Science (Marcus and Grollman, Science, 313 5785; 301-302, in case the link doesn't work for you) concludes as follows:

Conclusions

We believe that NCCAM funds proposals of dubious merit; its research agenda is shaped more by politics than by science; and it is structured by its charter in a manner that precludes an independent review of its performance. The central issue is not whether research into alternative therapies should be supported by NIH. In view of the popularity of alternative therapies, it is appropriate to evaluate the efficacy and safety of selected treatments. The issue is that the administration of research by NCCAM falls below the standards of other NIH institutes and that the evaluation of alternative therapies could be performed by mechanisms that are already in place at NIH. We do not question the qualifications or integrity of Stephen Straus and his staff. However, because of the constraints under which it operates, NCCAM is unable to implement a research agenda that addresses legitimate scientific opportunities or health-care needs (30). Applicants for NCCAM grants must follow the center's guidelines that stipulate which therapies are eligible for study. In contrast, applicants to NIH institutes can propose any project that may provide new insights into human biology or the pathogenesis or treatment of disease.

Oh, and for the discussion, can we keep on topic? Read the full AP article at the link, come back, and discuss. Let's avoid all assertions of authority by visiting instructorship or the like, or any claims of genius by public acclamation, like my new all-time favorite diarist response to a comment (emphasis, and redactions in brackets, are mine):

From a commenter To me, you appear prima facie to be a self-proclaimed genius who dismisses or insults anyone who disagrees with you or even asks a question. You might as well be Korzybski with his "General Semantics" or L. Ron Hubbard with his "Scientology" or Nikolai Tesla or Buckminster Fuller or Ayn Rand. You think you have the answer and anyone who disagrees with you is obviously an idiot. You remind me of my absolutist grandfather (who was a preacher who didn't allow any disagreement). [...] by [Commenter] on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 02:57:00 AM PDT The response by the diarist: other people proclaim it too n/t (1+ / 0-) by [Original Diarist] on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 10:59:54 AM PDT

Update [2009-6-10 2:12:12 by ragged claws scuttling]: I should have included the link to this great commentary on this article and "quackademic medicine" from Orac.