Alternative therapy refers to treatments that haven’t undergone the rigorous tests required of standard medical therapies, and thus may pose risks including harmful side effects or interfering with medical treatment plans.
Alternative practices often lack plausibility, scientific testability, repeatability or evidence of their effectiveness; their practices tend to rely heavily on testimonials, beliefs in supernatural “energies”, superstition, error in reasoning, propaganda or fraud as support for their claims.
1. Lack of Evidence
Alternative therapies have long been discussed in medical literature, yet solid proof can often be difficult to come by. Proving their effectiveness requires conducting large clinical trials that are both costly and time consuming – this makes proving alternative therapies‘ worth difficult and time consuming.
People promoting alternative therapies rely on anecdotes and testimonials from patients claiming the treatments helped. Unfortunately, this evidence cannot satisfy scientists and cancer doctors; for them to consider a novel therapy against accepted standards of care is required through organized clinical trials.
When confronted with insufficient evidence for alternative medicine, some proponents respond by advocating more research, diverting attention away from individual treatments and suggesting unblinded pragmatic trials (with high risks of bias). These responses do not suffice in closing the evidence gap and should be seen as part of the problem. These approaches often lead to biased results that serve only to confuse the public further. People who opt for alternative therapies risk forgoing effective conventional cancer treatments that could save their lives, which is a terrible tragedy. Cancer patients shouldn’t have to choose between standard cancer therapies that could potentially save their lives or alternative approaches that might or might not provide relief.
3. Misattribution of Effects
When an alternative therapy doesn’t work as expected, patients may attribute its failure to natural causes or placebo effects rather than lack of efficacy of treatment – leading them to turn even further towards alternative remedies. Such misattribution increases patient motivation to pursue alternative remedies.
Alternative medicine encompasses any practice which claims healing properties without being scientifically tested, such as anecdotes, testimonials, beliefs in supernatural “energies”, religion, superstitions, pseudoscience, errors in reasoning fraud or propaganda. When investigating alternative therapies it is essential to remember not all treatments are equal and some may actually be harmful; additionally it’s critical that those living in marginalized communities get access to appropriate healthcare systems – this especially true for marginalized communities that face discrimination when seeking care.
4. Nocebo Effect
Nocebo Effect – in which an individual experiences adverse side effects due to anticipatory fear – can be more potency than placebo effect because its cause lies not solely within medication or procedures, but also what doctors say about these treatments.
Doctors must carefully outline any potential adverse side effects of medications or procedures they prescribe in order to obtain informed consent from patients, but studies are showing that such information may have nocebo effects – for instance, warning patients about possible pain might cause more discomfort than if no warning were given; similarly if they are told a procedure might make them queasy, more will experience symptoms than had they not been warned that it could do so.
Nocebo effects can be problematic as they may lead to patients being less inclined to take medications or undergo treatments that would benefit them, leading to nonadherence with medicine which in turn is linked with various diseases and conditions. Researchers are currently exploring methods of decreasing nocebo effects by changing how doctors communicate with their patients.
Study results published in Dtsch Arztebl Int have demonstrated the power of how doctors present risks of treatments can have an outsized impact on whether patients experience side effects from them. For instance, when discussing side effects as “signs that the immune system is working” rather than simply saying that some side effects might arise from taking a vaccination, patients are less likely to experience them than if simply informed that possible adverse reactions exist with regard to that specific vaccine.
Researchers are investigating why some individuals are more prone to nocebo reactions and what factors predict the severity of those responses, including genetic predisposition, previous learning experiences and patient expectations surrounding specific treatments.
