| The hard thing about all of this is that, as you pointed out, studies are hard to do. Even if they were funded to the same level as pharmaceuticals, it would be much harder to make conclusive findings. But in the absence of huge companies with profit motives or government bodies with political motives, there's not much funding around for thorough studies. But some examples of where practices from TCM and CAM are achieving recognition are: - The Nobel Prize awarded to Tu Youyou for finding artemisinin effective for treating malaria [1] - A recent NIH review finding acupuncture, yoga and other non-drug therapies effective for common pain conditions [2] - A study of a chiropractic technique to reduce the physiological effects of emotional stress/trauma [3] But aside from these studies, surely the market is at least somewhat of an indicator of some level of benefit. Economists generally regard consumers of being capable of making rational decisions about how to spend their money in ways that most benefit them. Of course it's not a water-tight rule, but nor is it completely false. Yet many people dismiss the entire CAM industry as being fuelled by nothing but stupidity, and dismiss the possibility that at least some of the industry's customers are capable of making rational spending decisions when it comes to their health. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_Youyou [2] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-review-fin... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28181091 |
All the meridians and whatnot don't lend more credibility over...soil, say. Until they're tested properly. After which Nobel prizes can be won.