The scientific method can be successfully applied to natural pharmacy !

I do not see a methodological problem, but an economic one.

Profiteering-from-disease is the standard formula, for the moment, and this 'naturally' implies a bias for certain medical methods, e.g. surgery, drugs.

An 'ill' medical system produces also 'healthy' winners.

It is not a simple yes or no question. As long as these Asian alternative medical methods (i.e. yoga, acupuncture and moxibustion, qigong) and techniques aren't part of Western Clinical practice, it is not that important to follow the same standards.

But, in my humble opinion, some of the traditional Asian methods could be and should be proven by evidence-based methods, like using traditional herbal remedies (i.e. TCM medicines, Ayurvedic medicines etc.).

It is possible--I would argue anything that produces physical effects can be tested by evidence-based methodology. Whether or not it is necessary depends upon whether one wishes alternative medicine to be accepted by Western medicine. Evidence-based methodology is the accepted means by which evidence is evaluated in Western medicine, and therefore any practice wishing to be accepted by Western medicine should be evaluated through evidence-based methodology. Until claims are evaluated via evidence-based methodology, they remain in the category of "not evaluated" or "of untested value." I don't think it is a question of unproven or inadequately proven. Rather, the claims are not evaluated by acceptable methodology.

The results of complementary or alternative interventions must be validated by standard and scientific research before they can be reliably integrated into Western medicine. There is no doubt that evidence-based research in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) is preparing for such integration.

It is possible to apply the scientific method to (at least, some) alternative medicines, like acupuncture or herbal Medicine and it is essential that it happens in order to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of this sort of therapies. Especially, it is important to assess the cost-benefit of these therapies in order to be possible to evaluate the gains that the National Healthcare System and, subsequently, the populations would get if it starts to be implemented in the National Healthcare Services or in Private Insurance (in this case, with potential gains for the Insurance Sector and their customers).

In the particular case of the Traditional Chinese Medicine (which includes Acupuncture, Tuina, Herbal Medicine, among other therapies), the problem in finding evidence relies on the way the scientific investigation method is applied. Many of the published clinical trials investigate the health results gained by applying an acupuncture treatment to a certain pathology, but while the treatment method utilised is eastern, the diagnostic and respective pathology categorisation are the Western medicine ones, which are much different from the eastern ones. In the end, it's like if we had instructions on how to get to a place (by turning left, turning right, round the roundabout...) but we we're using a completely different map as a base reference. In a navigation scenario, this would probably takes us to a different place (with a different GPS location) than the one we were trying to get to (if not stopped in the middle of our travel by the inability to follow an instruction to round a roundabout and leave on the 3rd exit while, in fact, the roundabout doesn't even exist and we have no idea which direction would the 3rd exit be turned to). Of course, in the real healthcare scenario, these often takes us to inconclusive or contradictory results.

In my opinion, there is a huge lack and an increased need of a Clinical Trial Design Model that serves as a guideline on how to implement scientific method to alternative therapies, that is, without mixing up alternative therapies' treatment with Western medicine diagnostic tools. If a certain kind of Medicine needs to be proved effective and if that Medicine has its own diagnostic technology, then it should be used along with the respective treatment.

Also, when it comes to Traditional Chinese Medicine (it's the only alternative medicine I can really talk about), it's important that the clinical trials are conducted under certain conditions. What I see in many clinical trials papers is that many variables which are part of the treatment are left undefined, which leads to "the same treatment" being applied partially the same way for all the subjects (or by a peer in the context of a peer-review) and partially differently as important details were left off the table while designing the clinical trial.

It is not the possibility of assessing alternative medicine by exciting EBM tools. Now alternative medicine is in practice in my western countries and are integrated in western medicine. Western countries have a system to find what and which to evaluate. Centers like NICE, SIGN, Cochrane data base have to encourage the evaluation of alternative medicine. There may be difficulties but well constructed methodology may help to have sold outcome.

Thank you for your opinions so far. it is clear that it is not the logic and method of alternative medicine that is appropriate for the EBM, but rather the analytical methods that are appropriate to the logic of alternative medicine. The problem is not whether a herb works or does not work, but in meridian, tridosa theories, which work in practice but are not, or very indirectly, searchable with the present methods.

Yes, we always need to have the scientific research methods in mind but we need to be very wise while applying them, making sure the sistematic and Organization criteria are accomplished. That would be the only way to get consistent results and to measure the cost effectiveness of such a treatment.