@nikipedia I have no problem with alternative medicine that works. (That’s called “medicine” by the way)
I’m quite experienced in reading medical literature, and I’m always wary of systematic reviews as they often try to compare widely disparate studies. But let me take some examples from the paper for the trials that they said were randomly controlled trials:
Coccinia indica
“The one RCT of this herb (n = 32), ” (Insert buzzer sound here). Sorry, but a 32 person trial doesn’t have enough power.
Ginseng species
“Two longer-term trials administered American ginseng for 8 weeks (n = 36 and n = 24)”. Same criticism.
Allium species: sativum and cepa
“The highest quality RCT of Allium sativum in humans was actually designed to examine thrombocyte aggregation in nondiabetic individuals (n = 60). However, the investigators found significant decreases in fasting serum glucose ” This one is a little better. I’d need to know what they meant by “significant’. There is a difference between statistically significant and clinically significant.
“The only clinical trial available for Allium cepa is a small RCT of allyl propyl disulphide extract capsules from onion in nondiabetic volunteers (n = 6); ” Sorry (buzzer again)
And so on. You can’t just take the conclusions of a paper and generalize them. You have to look at the meat.
I’m not saying (and I know Shiloh would say the same thing) that there’s no role for alternative medicines, herbs and the like. But they have to be shown to work in a large, well designed, randomized controlled trial. Otherwise you’re a) throwing away your money and b) ignoring medical care that actually work.