I agree. I guess people use “alternative” to refer to “treatments” that have not been, are not able to be, or have failed proper trials.

Is laughter a treatment? It depends. A treatment is something you use to treat. Not something that is effective. If you want to summarize evidence or present opinion, do so, but don't play with language.

We could expand the word to the context it was used in if that is what you desire: medical treatment. We're not talking about treatment in itself, since that would also cover unrelated issues like 'waste water treatment', which isn't exactly related to the conversational context here.

How about the word "Therapeutic"?

Again, depends what for. If someone told me laughter was genuinely therapeutic for clinical depression, I… ok, I would still be surprised, but I could be convinced.

If they told me it would cure Alzheimer’s, I’d make a mental note to ignore their opinions in future.

“Alternative medicine” is so often snake oil, that anything calling itself that is something I hold in the same regard as Star Trek Voyager’s plot devices. Indeed, one such “alternative medicine” is what my mother used religiously to stave off old age memory problems — she got Alzheimer’s about 16 years younger than her mother, who didn’t use them.

> If they told me it would cure Alzheimer’s, I’d make a mental note to ignore their opinions in future.

Quick thinking has its place, but wouldn't you care why the person believes that? The anecdata about your family history isn't any more credible, if that's all we have to go by.

I think quick think should be addressed with slow think. By thinking speed I'm referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

> but wouldn't you care why the person believes that?

In the absence of any surprising circumstances, no. I grew up with all the tropes — Catholicism, New Age takes on Wicca, Hinduism, anamism; homeopathy, Bach flower remedies, dowsing, runestones, horoscopes — so I’ve got decent reason to believe I already know why they might believe this hypothetical I’ve literally just made up.

“You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? - Medicine.”

― Tim Minchin

Part of the issue is that the practice of medicine predate scientific medicine (which is known as just 'medicine' today). For example, many medicinal herbs used in traditional medicine are effective for a variety of ailments, and some have been proven scientifically. So how do we reconcile that with scientific medicine without stigmatising possibly effective remedies.

> many medicinal herbs used in traditional medicine are effective for a variety of ailments, and some have been proven scientifically. So how do we reconcile that with scientific medicine without stigmatising possibly effective remedies.

If those treatments have been studied in a scientific manner, then the reconciliation, so to speak, has already happened. But, how do we define the effectiveness of treatment? In some cases, using a placebo has shown some effect, but that's because the hypothesis about the effectiveness of a proposed treatment didn't pan out.

To be fair, a placebo can be helpful in its own way. And a 'good' placebo might need to have various methods, tastes, shapes, sizes etc; on the other hand it would be more psychotherapy than what people think of when thinking 'medicine'.

Something that 'helps' in a measurable way with no drawbacks is a useful tool to have. It does of course not mend broken bones or suture cuts in the skin.

As others have said: We do the trials, and, if something from the pre-scientific era passes muster, we figure out the best way to make it as safe and efficacious as possible with the least variability in effect and fewest side effects.

I'm not saying that eating a plant is ineffective, but plants don't come with dosage information for the active ingredient printed on the stem, and knowing how much of the useful (and potentially deadly) substance you're ingesting is important. Vitally important, if you're taking something like digitalis, which comes from foxglove: Get a digitalis dosage far enough wrong and it kills you.

Yeah, but by stigmatising traditional medicine as 'not medicine', the damage has already been done. Lots of people would be turned off a remedy just because it's 'not medicine', even afterward it was proven scientifically. It is medicine, just not scientific medicine. Compare with the issue of getting people to trust in vaccines when the news headlines are all about very rare side effects.

Keep in mind that there are traditional treatments that we haven't yet isolated the cause of action or the understand the pharmacology due to it being the interaction of different compounds.

I'm not supporting traditional or alternative medicine, but I also don't think that the issue is so black and white, and treating it as such turns people away from the subject entirely.

The issue is with the devaluation of mudding of words and language. (which might not be the correct wording)

I don't think it has to be stigmatising, but I do think that calling things by their specific name helps with everyones mindset.

Some words like 'helpful' are fine, because it does wat it says it does. But calling disparate things by the same name leaves the door open for people to mentally align those things to 'be' the same thing, which they aren't. Distinction is important, even if the differentiation isn't black-and-white. Taking some aspirine vs. drinking a nice cup of green tea can both help with a slightly sore throat, but they are not the same thing. (at the same time, I'd argue that it's better to take that nice cup of tea, take a nap, eat healthy, get to bed on time etc instead of covering the symptom with aspirine)

Turning people away from a subject in itself isn't a bad thing; if someone is swayed that easily, they should probably not be entering a world of non-repeatable non-measurable non-transferable items and activities, especially if the people involved can't be held responsible for their actions. It also isn't a pharmacology thing on its own. While pharmaceuticals can help with certain issues, it's not the core of medicine and in certain cultures it's mostly just abused to cover up symptoms instead of used to mitigate or resolve root causes.

But it's a tricky comparison. In the end we're comparing something measurable with something based on feelings and traditions. Those are generally not that reconcilable.

“Lots of people would be turned off a remedy just because it's 'not medicine', even afterward it was proven scientifically.” Not sure when that has actually happened?

Willow bark to aspirin is a great example of an extremely old “traditional” treatment becoming medicine. Same with quinine for malaria, etc. Tons of real medicines originated by isolating compounds found in nature, even if the final pill form you see is purified or even synthetic. Most people are unaware or just fine with this fact. Sure there are probably many natural treatments out there that are effective (and many that aren’t, or are downright dangerous). We should do the work needed to study them scientifically, and turn the good ones into medicine. Not just promote alternative treatments indiscriminately.

We do the trials.

I agree, I was just using term as it is normally used.

The pithy joke about it is this:

"What do you call alternative medicine that works?"

"Medicine."

From what I understand most "Alternative Medicine" can be chalked up to the placebo effect combined with a self fulfilling prophecy of patient expectations.