Mohd Hashim Shaari of What doctors don't tell you wrote that he is disappointed that allopathic medicine in general doesn't utilise alternative medicine in treatment regimens.

May I humbly remind him that there is one major factor that differentiates allopathic medicine from alternative medicine - the susceptibility to scrutiny. In allopathic medicine, no one (legal) company can come up with a drug and expect it to be approved if clinical trials on a large scale are not done, and benefits are not shown.

With alternative medicine, trends seem to show that as long as you are alternative, traditional or complimentary, you don't seem to need clinical evidence to back up your claims. All you need is a few good experiences with a few people, word of mouth, etc. Then throw in one or two research papers on the subject involving 40 people. There are no well-documented side effects, long-term effects and changes in the body's metabolism pathways. Even if there have been large scale clinical trials, there does not exist a monitoring body to monitor these claims.

I am by no means defending allopathic drug companies, for they have known to be unethical at times. But the difference is that this sector of healthcare is strictly regulated. Companies can't just come up with a pill, claim that it would drop blood sugar and market it widely without any evidence and side effect profile! If supporters of alternative forms of medicine want an equal playing field, play it fair. Open the field to scrutiny in the form of large-scale randomised clinical trials. Avoid hiding behind the banner of alternative medicine to defend the lack of evidence.

It is ridiculous to expect cure for every big disease in mankind to be found right away. Just as the discovery for antibiotics only took place half a century ago (despite infections being a very common cause of death for thousands of years), other cures are on the way. More research (ie. dollars, infrastructure and manpower) is needed if we want to move in that direction. With that being said, plenty of research is being done in the East and West that does not have the backing of drug companies.

When a drug is being assessed for efficacy, its side effects profile is monitored. Other factors such as the cost-benefit ratio is also assessed. It's true many medications out there cause many unwanted side effects, but at most instances, these side effects are a much better than the alternative to what could be a shortening of life.

It's simple logic really. If Drug A is shown to prolong life in 70% of patients but has a side effect of kidney failure in 1 in 50,000 instances, wouldn't it be wise to offer it to a patient while clearly stating its side effects? The alternative would be, of course, a shorter life span. Now do you want to deprive the benefit of life for 49,999 people when the risk of that side effect is so rare?

Basically, what we have right now is not ideal, but headway in Western medicine practices has been shown prolong the average human life in the last century alone. If other forms of medicine want to come into the picture, no problem. But please, subject these methods to the same scrutiny that allopathic medicine goes through.

If benefits have then been shown to outweigh risks, the winner is Man. Until that happens, however, it would be ridiculous to expect other forms of healthcare to be taken seriously by those who believe in evidence-based medicine.