I can quite understamnd qualified medical experts not publicly supporting procedures that do not have the medical fraternity’s approval.
But that is no reason to make derogatory public declatrations about subjects on which they have not fully studied, nor indeed passed exams thereon.
Perhaps these detractors need to cast their minds back to the days before when many of our life saving drugs and procedures did not have any scientific backing. Yet by use and study of the methods and results, official recognition has been bestowed on them. And they are in daily use the world over.
The article suggessts that many of these proceures etc. have not been officially apaproved. But how did the approved items gain approval? The answer is by research and testing. and looking at results of tests.
The fact that many of the procedures have not been tested and officially approved, does not mean they are not useful, or gains have not been made from their use. Admittedly some of the items marketed today fall under the ‘of no use’ category.
But for this institute to decry all items that do not have the FDA approval out of hand, surely shows a very inward looking philosophy, rather than an objective outward view of seeking possible procedures, which could advance human wellbeing.