More than 80 million adults in the United States are estimated to use some form of alternative medicine, from herbs and megavitamins to yoga and acupuncture. But while sweeping claims are made for these treatments, the scientific evidence for them often lags far behind: studies and clinical trials, when they exist at all, can be shoddy in design and too small to yield reliable insights.
Now the federal government is working hard to raise the standards of evidence, seeking to distinguish between what is effective, useless and harmful or even dangerous.
“The research has been making steady progress,” said Dr. Josephine P. Briggs, director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a division of the National Institutes of Health. “It’s reasonably new that rigorous methods are being used to study these health practices.”
The need for rigor can be striking. For instance, a 2004 Harvard study identified 181 research papers on yoga therapy reporting that it could be used to treat an impressive array of ailments — including asthma, heart disease, hypertension, depression, back pain, bronchitis, diabetes, cancer, arthritis, insomnia, lung disease and high blood pressure.
It turned out that only 40 percent of the studies used randomized controlled trials — the usual way of establishing reliable knowledge about whether a drug, diet or other intervention is really safe and effective. In such trials, scientists randomly assign patients to treatment or control groups with the aim of eliminating bias from clinician and patient decisions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/health/research/30tria.html?_r=1&ref=health&oref=sloginThat's pretty interesting. Recently, the British Columbian provincial government added acupuncture and some other complementary medical services to the medical services plan, which means they're covered (on a limited basis) under universal healthcare. The provincial government we have now are right wing neo-cons who would prefer to privatise everything if the People would let them get away with it (and they have tried), so either CAM has some pretty powerful lobbyists, or the government is convinced enough of CAM effectiveness that it will save healthcare money in the long run.