Consider The Alternative

I can't agree with Kent Sepkowitz of Slate on alternative medicine when he writes:

Both ["alternative" and "traditional" medicine] have much to offer and plenty to be embarrassed about. To date, neither has established an all-encompassing operation so wondrous that it should demand monogamy from patients.

Sorry, but whether it's alternative or traditional, one size fits all. Proper methods to test whether something works or not are the same no matter what you call it. Western ways of measuring success apply to all therapies, even if "alternative" backers want to think otherwise.

I understand that federal money can't go to all approaches, and considering the track record of many alternative approaches, we should be wary of funding them. My point is that if something is going to be accepted, no matter whether it's an age-old method, or something new and high-tech, it should be judged and tested the same way.

Sepkowitz fears if we ignore alternative medicine, we "ignore[ ] the observations of thousands of people over thousands of years as well as the true pace of medical progress, which is at best herky-jerky and aimless."

False. Ever since we started properly testing to see if stuff works--less than a century ago--medical progress has been swift. Let's not jeopardize that.