Letter to Newspaper
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to the article on 28th February on alternative medicine to share my views. Whilst a few issues definitely worth considering are addressed, its argument seems rather simplistic and misleading.
Having said that, I would be inclined to admit that a number of practitioners are conducting dubious businesses in the name of complementary therapy, without enough skills or credibility, as expressed in the text. I have to point out, however, that the argument was predominantly focused on those which fall into the “scam” category and hardly acknowledged other truly useful therapies such as osteopathy and acupuncture, which hold much more authenticity in terms of the effects to human health. That, in my opinion, is a profoundly wrong, because it would potentially rob those who need a certain therapy of opportunities to encounter it by biasing the reader with a certain misconception against it.
In terms of labelling alternative medicine as a whole as scientifically unproven, I’m afraid I again have to take exception. In fact, more and more academic institutes are starting to conduct research on this area, finding a wealth of evidence to support the benefits those methods provide, with a few fields such as chiropractic and Chinese medicine now being subjects of university degrees, though in some countries governments have yet to certify them officially as medicinal practices. That calls for more positive media coverage so that they will be within reach of those who could be helped by them, not unsubstantiated criticism.
Being I would not venture so far as to say that crystal healing will ever gain mainstream approval, but there are a variety of practices that can be found in every part of the spectrum, from fraud to genuine traditional medicine, and some of them definitely deserve extended attention. I look forward to more articles on this area from wider angles.
Yours faithfully,
Riaki Hirota
(316
I am writing in response to the article on 28th February on alternative medicine to share my views. Whilst a few issues definitely worth considering are addressed, its argument seems rather simplistic and misleading.
Having said that, I would be inclined to admit that a number of practitioners are conducting dubious businesses in the name of complementary therapy, without enough skills or credibility, as expressed in the text. I have to point out, however, that the argument was predominantly focused on those which fall into the “scam” category and hardly acknowledged other truly useful therapies such as osteopathy and acupuncture, which hold much more authenticity in terms of the effects to human health. That, in my opinion, is a profoundly wrong, because it would potentially rob those who need a certain therapy of opportunities to encounter it by biasing the reader with a certain misconception against it.
In terms of labelling alternative medicine as a whole as scientifically unproven, I’m afraid I again have to take exception. In fact, more and more academic institutes are starting to conduct research on this area, finding a wealth of evidence to support the benefits those methods provide, with a few fields such as chiropractic and Chinese medicine now being subjects of university degrees, though in some countries governments have yet to certify them officially as medicinal practices. That calls for more positive media coverage so that they will be within reach of those who could be helped by them, not unsubstantiated criticism.
Being I would not venture so far as to say that crystal healing will ever gain mainstream approval, but there are a variety of practices that can be found in every part of the spectrum, from fraud to genuine traditional medicine, and some of them definitely deserve extended attention. I look forward to more articles on this area from wider angles.
Yours faithfully,
Riaki Hirota
(316