Doctors worldwide are proud of their practice of the so-called evidence-based medicine and their peer-reviewd published journal articles employing the most sophisticated statistical tools available in their analyses of research findings. To some this is the end rather than the means to an end.

However, let us be reminded that the so-called evidence-based medicine is a misnomer at its best. It should be re-phrased as medicine based on available evidence. For instance, just recently we had witnessed the withdrawal of a much-vaunted drug from the market because of unacceptable side effects.

In all fairness it had passed through the rigours of requirements imposed by the authority; yet those side effects were not foreseen until the use of the drug had become widespread (Phase IV Studies).

The only sin of traditional cure is that it has no sponsors for the conduct of its randomised double blind trials. If governments or private individuals could provide the money for this purpose, head- to-head comparison against mainstream medicine could be made.

The reason for this is, of course, money again. Natural stuff cannot be copyrighted, therefore there is no monetary incentive to do so. And if my memory does not fail me, I think a good 40 percent of western medicines are derived from nature.

Perhaps we should get funding for the study of traditional cures to solve the question of whether they are superior to allopathic methods.