One that springs immediately to mind ultrasound scans in obstetrics. An important tool but overused and abused. Research conducted by the WHO compared results in 11 group trials of women - some of whom recieved ultrasound if 'indicated' - ie suspected multiple, abnormality or complication while others recieved 'routine' ultrasounds throughout. The conclusion - scientifically based - was "Routine scans do not seem to be associated with reductions in adverse outcomes for babies or in health service use by mothers and babies."

Yet Australian mothers can expect at least 3 'routine', often 5 - 8 if 'indicated'. The cost to Medicare - taxpayers, is around $70 a pop with an additional $60 - $80 gap payment if the mother is attending a private practice. The annual birth rate is now around 300,000 - at rate of 3 scans per pregnancy that is a cost to Medicare of 63 million. Probably at least half that is wasted money. Now factor in the gap payments - and the private practitioner is very enthusiastic in recommending scans, so you're likely to get an extra 1,2,3 or more and that's conservatively an extra $250 per patient per pregnancy. Approx 30% of mothers recieve private obstetric care - about 100,000 annually. That's another 25 million coming directly from the parent/s going directly to the obstetric practice. For what demonstrated scientifically proven health advantage? Little to none!

Smells like .... QUACKERY??

This is but one example of 'psuedo-science' waste and downright profiteering in the 'Conventional Medicine' field.

Yes - Charlatans, Conmen and their ilk should be scrutinised and where possible, consumers protected from unscrupulous behaviour. This includes elements of modern medicine. At the same time people have a right to choose and for some - a minority, that choice will be non-mainstream. So be it. For some it will provide the answer, most others will move on if the treatment proves ineffective.

Not everything can be explained by science BTW. I've learned that the more you know, the more you realise how much you don't know - or ever will.

*John allows that chiropractic has benefits for back problems - it's the rest of it that isn't scientific.*

Graham, yes, I got that notion from reading the article. But somewhere, somebody, needs to separate the science from the voodoo.
Why not universities?

In my experience, some chiropracters indeed want to use science as
the basis for what they do. Others less so.

So an accredited course in chiropractic, run with scrutiny by
a university, could actually be a positive outcome.

When I go to a chiro, I don't accept that I should keep returning,
as many of them suggest. That does not mean that there are not
times, when I've misused my back at work, where a chiro cannot help,
unlike doctors, who can't. So we need some clarity. Why not
achieve it through universities?

There are conditions marginalised by conventional medicine but treated by 'fringe' doctors, such as under-methylation, pyroluria etc. Treatment repeatedly restores sanity and health. These are complex conditions and the range of treatment responses may reflect the complexity of the physiological/genetic systems involved but robust statistics are available including evidence of health care cost savings. My family pays a few $1000s a year to be restored to sanity, free of heavy metal accumulation and relatively normal in mood, simply through vitamin and mineral supplements prescribed by a trained doctor. The PBS ignores the diagnosis and treatment needs. Conventional treatments, including hospitalisation, offer no sustainable recovery path e.g. chelation would be a continuous need if accumulation of heavy metals wasn't prevented. More humility by the mainstream medical profession and a willingness to accept strong, replicated anecdotal evidence as a starting point for serious investigation would be welcome.

What do you call alternative medicine that works?

Medicine.

Anyone foolish enough to consider flushing their money down the sinkhole of 'CAM' would do well to read at least either Singh & Ernst's 'Trick or Treatment?' or Dr. Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Science'.

Singh and Ernst conduct a review of all the scientific literature regarding CAM (quite a lot of it) and deliver a blunt assessment of what works (almost none of it).

Ben Goldacre should have some appeal to the CAM crowd, in that he is also no fan of the alt-med loons' favourite bogeyman, the wicked 'Big Pharma'. But Goldacre *is* a fan of evidence. He loves the stuff. As a consequence, he has even less time for CAM.

As a retired chiropractor I have to agree with much of this article. I practiced musculo skeletal manipulation for 25 yrs. I had a full practice. I had a working relationship with orthopedic surgeons in my area. Before that I was a radiographer. I deplore the way ammerican chiropractors have taken over in universities and spread their ideas of "inate intelligence". However I also regret the hypocrisy some of the medical people. Courses have been run for medical practitioners in manipulation. These courses lasted just a few days and then they have a certificate. My own gp has one on his wall and I have a close friend who is a GP and he has done the course. Frankly manipulative therapy cannot be taught in a course lasting a few days. Its ridiculous. Also many medical doctors use acupuncture. As for evidence based medicine, come on, give me a break. Much of medicine is wishful thinking. As for scientific evaluation, well that costs money. Yes it should be carried out. In short I believe some of the outrgaeous claims should be challenged but lets be fair and include medical practice too. By the way you should shine the light on psychology, now that would give you something to talk about.

While some complimentary practices such as chiropractors have obvious benefits, most do not, and have no science in them whatsoever.

However, this also applies to religion, and the arts.