For page: Alternative medicine
I would like to make the following addition to the "Efficacy" section:
The NCCIH has often been criticized for its low standards for funding alternative medicine research. Such criticisms have garnered national attention, forcing the NCCIH to publish a post on its site asserting its scientific credibility [1]. One of the main critiques has been that peer reviews of grant proposals are often performed by CAM practitioners instead of health experts. As a result, many ineffectual grant proposals have been supported [2]. One such example is a study funded by the NCCIH which found that cranberry juice cocktail was no better at preventing urinary tract infections than the placebo [3]. Many similar questionable research proposals have been funded by the NCCIH [4].This has taken away much-needed funding from researching alternative treatments that may actually work, further perpetuating the stigma of CAM as scientific quackery [5].
- ^ "On Scientific Plausibility". National Institutes of Health. Retrieved 2018-11-1.
- ^ "Anatomy of the CAM Scam, NIH Edition". Neurologica Blog. Retrieved 2018-11-1.
- ^ "Study Shows Cranberry Juice Cocktail Is No Better Than Placebo at Preventing Recurrent UTIs". National Institutes of Health. Retrieved 2018-11-1.
- ^ "NIH needs to raise the bar for funding alternative medicine research". Stat. Retrieved 2018-11-1.
- ^ "Funding CAM Research". Science-Based Medicine. Retrieved 2018-11-1.