Medical therapy needs to have sound evidence before recommendations can be applied to a wide range of the population. Things such as efficacy, known side effects, anticipated side effects and cost effectiveness are just a few things that need to be considered before a medication or therapy can be prescribed widespread. The best population study groups are those that compare two identically matched populations with only one variable between them...say the therapy or medication under study, and the number of subjects under study have to meet statistical criteria. Unfortunately only a study using identical twins even comes close and nearly impossible to design for all therapies under study.
Physicians are bound by ethics to prescribe only those treatments that are considered the " acceptable standards of care" throughout our country. Anecdotal reports of response to a particular therapy does not fulfill this criteria. Many "alternative therapies" fall into the anecdotal category. I think in the last 20 years that physicians have become less resistant to their patients trying an alternative therapy approached as long as it did not harm them directly or indirectly if it prevented instituting a known appropriate conventional therapy.
Be wary of any product that claims a benefit that uses only testimonials to back up their claim. Obviously the product makers do not publish testimonials of their failures. Glusosamine chondroitin has been around along time and seems to help some and not others. A study showing that it actually reverses the inflammation of arthritic changes on an xray are rare or not available.
Medicine has been moving more and more to evidence based protocol therapies and it will only get worse under Obamacare.
Most therapies that were prescribed before the advent of modern medicine before 1950 were anecdotal at best and quite ineffective and hazardous to the patient. I say if it works and does no harm go for it.
