Letter: Alternative medicine
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: In this berating of "biased" media coverage of complementary medicine, Professor Ernst seems unaware of his own inevitable bias.
Far from "scientific evaluation" providing an objective and disinterested means of clarifying the relative efficacy of "scientific" and "complementary" medicine, such a methodology, steeped as it is in the ideologies of modern technocratic science, is itself just as culturally relative as are the complementary approaches which embrace a world-view which may well be incompatible with that of modern empirical science.
Inductively derived "ancient wisdoms" (which are crucially different from Ernst's principal target, "anecdotal evidence"), distilled over millennia of real human trial-and-error experience, are at least as likely to provide reliable evidence as are the mechanistic methods of modern science.
Dr RICHARD HOUSE
Norwich
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments