This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Complementary and Alternative Medicine  • Alert me on articles by topic

Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:914-915.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

The most prominent reason why skeptics dismiss complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is "lack of evidence": there is no reason that treatment X works for condition Y and therefore it is not reasonable to invest substantial amounts of money into researching this topic.^1-2 Of course, absence of evidence does not mean that there is evidence of the absence of an effect. But, if there is no positive evidence, the probability of an effect is too small for dedication of money, time, or expertise for research. Because our resources are finite, we cannot test everything for anything. Prior probability and the need to spend our research dollars wisely demand that we pursue those lines of scientific inquiry that are most promising—and CAM is simply not among them.³

This is roughly the line of arguments against CAM research that has been rehearsed over and over again. It seems logical and persuasive at . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, FRCP, FRCPEd
Exeter, England