Alternative and Complementary Medicine
The name 'Alternative' medicine implies that it has been set up in opposition to regular ('Western', 'Orthodox') practice, so that the patient must choose one or the other. That is to misunderstand the spirit of the thing. Individual doctors will use whatever they think is likely to benefit their patients whatever demented politicians and regulators may try to impose. As far as Britain is concerned their right to do so is (nominally) enshrined by the Medicines Act of 1968. It follows that there cannot be any worthwhile system of medicine in opposition to regular medicine and nor does the medical profession condemn herbal or other remedies or methods of healing. Why would they? Individuals, advisory bodies and health authorities may do so, but the profession, never.
Rather, the modern practice of medicine bases itself on evidence. It is for those who put forward a new or unusual form of treatment to produce the evidence that it really does work and, as many have found, that is a long, hard and expensive thing to do and will not be attempted unless the mode of treatment concerned looks promising. It is natural to be sceptical about a new form of treatment ('sceptical' expresses doubt, not rejection) if the expected evidence is lacking; all the more so if that evidence could in principle be found by simply doing the necessary experiments. Unfortunately, a few stories of success in particular patients is not enough, if there might be more than one explanation.
At 21st Century we will use so-called 'Alternative' remedies whenever that seems likely to be best.
Complementary
'Complementary' means that the method of treatment discussed is not set up in opposition to regular medicine, but seeks to provide an additional form of help. In view of the above, obviously, at 21st Century we use a complementary approach whenever we think it will be best.
GLUCOSAMINE.
On the right, you will find an explanation of why any sensible scientist starts off with a sceptical outlook on the supposed benefits of glucosamine - there is a plausible story, but as soon as you look under the first stone, black beetles crawl out. That nice plausible story is definitely untrue.
On the other hand there is supposed to be evidence from clinical trials, that glucosamine products are beneficial in cases of arthritis. In reality the results are weak and all the research we know about was paid for by interested commercial companies, which really should make a difference about we judge the matter. The strongest statement that can be made in favour of glucosamine, at present, is that that the question is not perfectly resolved.
Then again, if better trials eventually proved that glucosamine treatment really is beneficial then the chemical and biochemical logic is irrelevant. That would not prove that the biochemists were wrong - rather it would prove that glucosamine had produced its benefits in a way as yet unknown and our scientific knowledge was inadequate. That happens from time to time: science ain't perfect; perfection is for prophets.
At 21st Century Clinics, if indeed glucosamine were to prove beneficial, we would use it in defiance of the biochemical logic. That is the true medical logic. We describe this example in detail to show the nature of real medical thinking, which is opposed neither to physical science nor to good ideas from any direction, whatever the nuttier alternative practitioners may say.