The National Health and Medical Research Council recently released a statement affirming that homeopathy is not effective for treating any health condition.
I used to be more lax towards alternative and complementary medicine, thinking that certain forms of Eastern medicine and homeopathic remedies operated on a different paradigm than the science-based treatment strategies that I was taught.
However the more I practice the more I develop a healthy skepticism of such forms of treatment. In my own practice, I am always asking myself "why", scrutinizing the reasons as to why I choose specific treatment interventions and factoring in evidence-based medicine whenever possible. If evidence-based clinicians should have responsible skepticism towards even traditionally accepted forms of medicine, how much more do we need to scrutinize why/if alternative medicine works?
This is not meant to disrespect the cultural traditions through which many forms of alternative medicine have their roots but rather a call for a more critical examination of certain practices in health, wellness, diet, rehabilitation and medicine.
We have to move past rationale like "but it works for me" or "this is the way so-and-so have been doing it for generations". I even find myself disagreeing with "well, as long as it doesn't hurt me. why not?" because such thinking diverts people from asking more relevant questions and observing more valid metrics. The same applies to relying on positive outcomes through the placebo effect.
Oh, and vaccinate your children!