I don't understand your argument. You said that alt.med methods are effective. I and Nursie point out that the methods which are effective for alt.med are also part of std.med. They are not unique to alt.med and therefore cannot be used to justify the validity of other alt.med practices which are not part of std.med.

Do you agree with this argument? If not, why not? If both std.med and alt.med make the same recommendation then what's "alt" about alt.med? Otherwise I continue.

You point out that prayer is effective. I respond that intercessory prayer has not been shown to be effective, despite several large-scale experiments. Yes, prayer can be part of palliative care, since it might make some people feel better. But palliative care is not treatment.

It also leads to questions like, is reading a good book on the topic of death or dealing with terminal cancer (as with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliotherapy) a better, more effective palliative care than telling people to read the Good Book?

You point out that the ACS says that prayer is effective. I point out that you've misread the page, because the ACS page does not say that prayer is effective. It only says that prayer is a visible aspect of how some people carry out their 'spiritual life', and that a spiritual life may help some people feel better.

Furthermore, the definition of 'spiritual life' on that page is so ill-defined that it includes, say, the hobbies of a dyed-in-the-wool hard-core reductionist, atheist, anti-CAM person. Which might also be hobbies that a std.med practitioner would suggest. There is nothing "alt" about a doctor suggesting that someone relax by taking a holiday in the countryside, away from computers and phones.

So no, it's not good enough me as evidence that alt.med is effective. Nor should it be good enough for you.

Yes, there are perhaps a dozen dietary supplements and herbs which might be useful. These are overshadowed by the array of supplements on the market that have no redeeming quality except perhaps to enrich the pockets of the multi-billion dollar supplement manufacturing industry.

Which means that yes, Nursie and I are wrong in that there is a thin sliver of possibly useful treatments to come from alt.med. Most interestingly, these tend to be for anxiety and depression, where effectiveness is much harder to evaluate than "can cure a staphylococcus infection." Thin evidence, I say, but I'll concede that sliver.

Your argument though is that those dozen possible treatments justify the entire alt.med industry? Color me doubtful.

You say that I ignore the evidence. What I ask is that you present the evidence. The ACS page does not seem to provide the evidence that you say it does. The ACS page is, of course, a summary and cannot be held up to full scrutiny, which is why, in order to strengthen my argument, I've made references to some of the experimental research papers on the topic, and they concur with my position.

Surely if there is the good evidence that you say there is then you can either find more experimental research with conclusions that strengthen your viewpoint, or can highlight the flaws in the papers I cite, yes?