Christian Science is a set of beliefs and practices belonging to the metaphysical family of new religious movements. It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy, who argued in her 1875 book Science and Health that sickness is an illusion that can be corrected by prayer alone; the book became Christian Science's central text, along with the Bible, by 2001 had sold over nine million copies. Eddy and 26 followers were granted a charter in 1879 to found the Church of Christ, in 1894 the Mother Church, The First Church of Christ, was built in Boston, Massachusetts. Christian Science became the fastest growing religion in the United States, with nearly 270,000 members by 1936, a figure that had declined by 1990 to just over 100,000; the church is known for its newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor, which won seven Pulitzer Prizes between 1950 and 2002, for its public Reading Rooms around the world. Eddy described Christian Science as a return to "primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing".
There are key differences between Christian Science theology and that of other branches of Christianity. In particular, adherents subscribe to a radical form of philosophical idealism, believing that reality is purely spiritual and the material world an illusion; this includes the view that disease is a mental error rather than physical disorder, that the sick should be treated not by medicine, but by a form of prayer that seeks to correct the beliefs responsible for the illusion of ill health. The church does not require that Christian Scientists avoid all medical care—adherents use dentists, obstetricians, physicians for broken bones, vaccination when required by law—but maintains that Christian-Science prayer is most effective when not combined with medicine. Between the 1880s and 1990s, the avoidance of medical treatment led to the deaths of several adherents and their children. Parents and others were prosecuted for, in a few cases convicted of, manslaughter or neglect. Several periods of Protestant Christian revival nurtured a proliferation of new religious movements in the United States.
In the latter half of the 19th century these included what came to be known as the metaphysical family: groups such as Christian Science, Divine Science, the Unity School of Christianity and the United Church of Religious Science. From the 1890s the liberal section of the movement became known as New Thought, in part to distinguish it from the more authoritarian Christian Science; the term metaphysical referred to the movement's philosophical idealism, a belief in the primacy of the mental world. Adherents believed that material phenomena were the result of mental states, a view expressed as "life is consciousness" and "God is mind." The supreme cause was referred to as Divine Mind, God, Life, Principle or Father–Mother, reflecting elements of Plato, Berkeley, Hegel and transcendentalism. The metaphysical groups became known as the mind-cure movement because of their strong focus on healing. Medical practice was in its infancy, patients fared better without it; this provided fertile soil for the mind-cure groups, who argued that sickness was an absence of "right thinking" or failure to connect to Divine Mind.
The movement traced its roots in the United States to Phineas Parkhurst Quimby, a New England clockmaker turned mental healer, whose motto was "the truth is the cure." Mary Baker Eddy had been a patient of his, leading to debate about how much of Christian Science was based on his ideas. New Thought and Christian Science differed in that Eddy saw her views as a unique and final revelation. Eddy's idea of malicious animal magnetism marked another distinction, introducing an element of fear, absent from the New Thought literature. Most she dismissed the material world as an illusion, rather than as subordinate to Mind, leading her to reject the use of medicine, or materia medica, making Christian Science the most controversial of the metaphysical groups. Reality for Eddy was purely spiritual. Christian Science leaders place their religion within mainstream Christian teaching, according to J. Gordon Melton, reject any identification with the New Thought movement. Eddy was influenced by her Congregationalist upbringing.
According to the church's tenets, adherents accept "the inspired Word of the Bible as sufficient guide to eternal Life... acknowledge and adore one supreme and infinite God... acknowledge His Son, one Christ. When founding the Church of Christ, Scientist, in April 1879, Eddy wrote that she wanted to "reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing", she suggested that Christian Science was a kind of second coming and that Science and Health was an inspired text. In 1895, in the Manual of the Mother Church, she ordained the Bible and Science and Health as "Pastor over the Mother Church". Christian Science theology differs in several respects from that of traditional Christianity. Eddy's Science and Health reinterprets key Christian concepts, including the Trinity, divinity of Jesus and resurrection. At the core of Eddy's theology is the view that the spiritual world is the only reality and is good, that the material world, with its evil and death, is an illusion. Eddy saw humanity as an "idea of Mind", "perfect, eternal and reflects the divine", according to Bryan Wilson.
Animal magnetism known as mesmerism, was the name given by German doctor Franz Mesmer in the 18th century to what he believed to be an invisible natural force possessed by all living things, including humans and vegetables. He believed that the force could have physical effects, including healing, he tried persistently but without success to achieve scientific recognition of his ideas; the vitalist theory attracted numerous followers in Europe and the United States and was popular into the 19th century. Practitioners were known as magnetizers rather than mesmerists, it was an important specialty in medicine for about 75 years from its beginnings in 1779, continued to have some influence for another 50 years. Hundreds of books were written on the subject between 1766 and 1925, but it is entirely forgotten today. Mesmerism is still practised as a form of alternative medicine in some countries, but magnetic practices are not recognized as part of medical science; the terms "magnetizer" and "mesmerizer" have been applied to people who study and practice animal magnetism.
These terms have been distinguished from "mesmerist" and "magnetist", which are regarded as denoting those who study animal magnetism without being practitioners. The etymology of the word magnetizer comes from the French "magnetiseur", which in turn is derived from the French verb magnetiser; the term refers to an individual who has the power to manipulate the "magnetic fluid" with effects upon other people present that were regarded as analogous to magnetic effects. This sense of the term is found, for example, in the expression of Antoine Joseph Gorsas: "The magnetizer is the imam of vital energy". A tendency emerged amongst British magnetizers to call their clinical techniques "mesmerism". At the time, some magnetizers attempted to channel what they thought was a magnetic "fluid", sometimes they attempted this with a "laying on of hands". Reported effects included various feelings: intense heat, trembling and seizures. Many practitioners took a scientific approach, such as Joseph Philippe François Deleuze, a French physician, anatomist and physicist.
One of his pupils was Théodore Léger, who wrote that the label "mesmerism" was "most improper".. Noting that, by 1846, the term "galvanism" had been replaced by "electricity", Léger wrote that year: Mesmerism, of all the names proposed, is decidedly the most improper, he is not the inventor of the practical part of the science, since we can trace the practice of it through the most remote ages. He proposed for it a theory, now exploded, which, on account of his errors, has been fatal to our progress, he never spoke of the phenomena. In 1784 a French Royal Commission appointed by Louis XVI studied Mesmer's magnetic fluid theory to try to establish it by scientific evidence; the commission included Majault, Benjamin Franklin, Jean Sylvain Bailly, Jean-Baptiste Le Roy, Jean Darcet, de Borey, Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, Antoine Lavoisier, Caille, Mauduyt de la Varenne, de Jussieu. Whilst the commission agreed that the cures claimed by Mesmer were indeed cures, it concluded there was no evidence of the existence of his "magnetic fluid", that its effects derived from either the imaginations of its subjects or charlatanry.
A second investigating committee, appointed by a majority vote in 1826 in The Royal Academy of Medicine in Paris, studied the effects and clinical potentials of the mesmeric procedure - without trying to establish the physical nature of any magnetic fluidum. The report says: what we have seen in the course of our experiments bears no sort of resemblance to what the Report of 1784 relates with regard to the magnetizers of that period. We neither reject the existence of the fluid, because we have not verified the fact. We do not speak of... the crisis Among the conclusions were: Magnetism has taken effect upon persons of different sexes and ages.... In general, magnetism does not act upon persons in a sound state of health.... Neither does it act upon all sick persons.... We may conclude with certainty that this state exists, when it gives rise to the development of new faculties, which have been designated by the names of clairvoyance. We can not only act upon the magnetized person, but place him in a complete state of somnambulism, bring him out of it without his knowledge, out of his sight, at a certain distance, with doors intervening....
The greater number of the somnambu
Auriculotherapy is a form of alternative medicine based on the idea that the ear is a micro system, which reflects the entire body, represented on the auricle, the outer portion of the ear. Conditions affecting the physical, mental or emotional health of the patient are assumed to be treatable by stimulation of the surface of the ear exclusively. Similar mappings are used in many areas of the body, including the practices of reflexology and iridology; these mappings are not based on or supported by any medical or scientific evidence, are therefore considered to be pseudoscience. Auriculotherapy was proposed in the “Treatise of Auriculotherapy”, by the neurologist Paul Nogier; the developments were made by clinical trials based upon a phrenological method of projection of a fetal Homunculus on the ear, for reference of physical complaints and points for medical treatment. Nogier soon presented his discovery to the public, where members of the Chinese Army picked up the map and took it to the barefoot doctors of China, farmers with minimal training in basic medical and in paramedical skills, so provide medical services in rural China.
Moreover, Nogier published what he called the “Vascular Autonomic Signal”, a distinct change in the amplitude of the pulse felt with the tip of the thumb at the radial artery. That mechanism would only produce a signal upon the introduction of new information to the electromagnetic field of the patient. Nogier was working with the principle of matching resonance, said that he could use the vascular autonomic signal to detect the active points of the auricular microsystem
Magnet therapy, magnetic therapy is a pseudoscientific alternative medicine practice involving a weak static magnetic fields produced by a permanent magnet. It is similar to the alternative medicine practice of electromagnetic therapy, which uses a magnetic field generated by an electrically powered device. Practitioners claim that subjecting certain parts of the body to weak electric or magnetic fields has beneficial health effects; these physical and biological claims are unproven and no effects on health or healing have been established. Although hemoglobin, the blood protein that carries oxygen, is weakly diamagnetic or paramagnetic, the magnets used in magnetic therapy are many orders of magnitude too weak to have any measurable effect on blood flow; this is not to be confused with trans-cranial magnetic stimulation, a scientifically valid form of therapy Magnet therapy involves applying the weak magnetic field of permanent magnets to the body, for purported health benefits. Different effects are assigned to different orientations of the magnet.
Products include jewelry. Application is performed by the patient, it is similar to the alternative medicine practice of electromagnetic therapy, which uses the weak electric or magnetic fields as well, but generated by electrically powered devices. The most common suggested mechanism is that magnets might improve blood flow in underlying tissues; the field surrounding magnet therapy devices is far too weak and falls off with distance far too to appreciably affect hemoglobin, other blood components, muscle tissue, blood vessels, or organs. A 1991 study on humans of static field strengths up to 1 T found no effect on local blood flow. Tissue oxygenation is unaffected; some practitioners claim that the magnets can restore the body's hypothetical "electromagnetic energy balance", but no such balance is medically recognized. In the magnetic fields used in magnetic resonance imaging, which are many times stronger, none of the claimed effects are observed. If the body were meaningfully affected by the weak magnets used in magnet therapy, MRI would be impractical.
Several studies have been conducted in recent years to investigate what role, if any, static magnetic fields may play in health and healing. Unbiased studies of magnetic therapy are problematic, since magnetisation can be detected, for instance, by the attraction forces on ferrous objects. Incomplete or insufficient blinding tends to exaggerate treatment effects where any such effects are small. Health claims regarding longevity and cancer treatment are implausible and unsupported by any research. More mundane health claims, most about anecdotal pain relief lack any credible proposed mechanism and clinical research is not promising; the American Cancer Society states that "available scientific evidence does not support these claims". According to the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, studies of magnetic jewelry haven't shown demonstrable effects on pain, nerve function, cell growth or blood flow. A 2008 systematic review of magnet therapy for all indications found insufficient evidence to determine whether magnet therapy is effective for pain relief, as did a 2012 review focused on osteoarthritis.
Both reviews reported that small sample sizes, inadequate randomization, difficulty with allocation concealment all tend to bias studies positively and limit the strength of any conclusions. These devices are considered safe in themselves, though there can be significant financial and opportunity costs to magnet therapy when treatment or diagnosis are avoided or delayed; the worldwide magnet therapy industry totals sales of over a billion dollars per year, including $300 million per year in the United States alone. A 2002 U. S. National Science Foundation report on public attitudes and understanding of science noted that magnet therapy is "not at all scientific." A number of vendors make unsupported claims about magnet therapy by using pseudoscientific and new-age language. Such claims are unsupported by the results of clinical studies. Marketing of any therapy as effective treatment for any condition is restricted by law in many jurisdictions unless all such claims are scientifically validated.
In the United States, for example, U. S. Food and Drug Administration regulations prohibit marketing any magnet therapy product using medical claims, as such claims are unfounded. Magnetic Therapy: Can magnets alleviate pain? by Cecil Adams — The Straight Dope Magnetic Therapy: Plausible Attraction? by James D. Livingston — Skeptical Inquirer Magnet therapy in the Skeptic's Dictionary by Robert Todd Carroll Magnet therapy — editorial in the British Medical Journal Magnet Therapy: A Skeptical View by Stephen Barrett — Quackwatch
Cupping therapy is an ancient form of alternative medicine. Cupping is used in more than 60 countries, its usage dates back to as far as 1,550 B. C. There are different forms of cupping. Cups are applied onto the skin and a suction is created, pulling the skin up, it is meant to increase blood flow to certain areas to the body. Cupping has been characterized as a pseudoscience. There is no good evidence it has any health benefits, there are some risks of harm from fire and wet cupping. Cupping is poorly supported by scientific evidence, with a 2014 review of recent evidence finding that "because of the unreasonable design and poor research quality, the clinical evidence of cupping therapy is low." A 2011 review found that "the effectiveness of cupping is not well-documented for most conditions", that systematic reviews showing efficacy for the treatment of pain "were based on poor quality primary studies." The American Cancer Society notes that "available scientific evidence does not support claims that cupping has any health benefits" and that the treatment carries a small risk of burns.
In their 2008 book Trick or Treatment, Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst write that no evidence exists of any beneficial effects of cupping for any medical condition. Critics of alternative medicine such as Harriet Hall and Mark Crislip have characterized cupping as "pseudoscience nonsense", "a celebrity fad", "gibberish", observed that there is no evidence that cupping works any better than a placebo. Pharmacologist David Colquhoun writes that cupping is "laughable... and utterly implausible." Practicing surgeon David Gorski observes, "...it’s all risk for no benefit. It has no place in modern medicine, or at least shouldn’t." While ineffective, cupping is safe when applied by trained professionals on people who are otherwise healthy. Cupping may result in bruising, pain, and/or skin infection, is not recommended for people with health problems due to side effects. In 2016, the Cambodian Ministry of Health warned that cupping could be a health risk and dangerous for people with high blood pressure or heart problems.
Research suggests that cupping is harmful in people who are thin or obese: According to Jack Raso, cupping results in capillary expansion, excessive fluid accumulation in tissues, the rupture of blood vessels. Cupping therapy adverse events can be divided into local and systemic adverse events; the local adverse events were scar formation, skin infection, abscess formation, pain at the cupping site, systemic adverse events including: anemia, vasovagal attack, insomnia and nausea. Fire cupping can sometimes result in minor to severe burns at the cupping site, may lead to hospitalization and may require skin grafting to repair the injury. Other burns can occur due to carelessness with the flammable substances being used, such as spills and over application; some contraindications for cupping may include: pregnancy, dry or cracked skin, open wounds, or thin blood. While details vary between practitioners and cultures, the practice consists of drawing tissue into a cap placed on the targeted area by creating a partial vacuum – either by the heating and subsequent cooling of the air in the cup, or via a mechanical pump.
The cup is left in place for somewhere between five and fifteen minutes. Cupping therapy types can be classified using four distinct methods of categorisation; the first system of categorisation relates to "technical types" including: dry, wet and flash cupping therapy. The second categorisation relates to "the power of suction related types" including: light and strong cupping therapy; the third categorisation relates to "the method of suction related types" including: fire, manual suction, electrical suction cupping therapy. The fourth categorisation relates to "materials inside cups" including: herbal products, ozone, moxa and magnetic cupping therapy. Further categories of cupping were developed later; the fifth relates to area treated including: facial, female and orthopedic cupping therapy. The sixth relates to "other cupping types" that include aquatic cupping; the cupping procedure involves creating a small area of low air pressure next to the skin. However, there are varieties in the tools used, the methods of creating the low pressure, the procedures followed during the treatment.
The cups can be of various shapes including balls or bells, may range in size from 1 to 3 inches across the opening. Plastic and glass are the most common materials used today, replacing the horn, pottery and bamboo cups used in earlier times; the low air pressure required may be created by heating the cup or the air inside it with an open flame or a bath in hot scented oils placing it against the skin. As the air inside the cup cools, it contracts and draws the skin inside. More vacuum is created with a mechanical suction pump acting through a valve located at the top of the cup. Rubber cups are available that squeeze the air out and adapt to uneven or bony surfaces. In practice, cups are used only on softer tissue that can form a good seal with the edge of the cup, they may be used singly or with many to cover a larger area. They may be placed over an acupuncture needle. Skin may be lubricated. Cupping is not painful. There might be discomfort due to the tight suction created, pulling the skin up.
After a cupping session, the person might see red circle marks on their body. It is a misconception that these red circle
Ear candling called ear coning or thermal-auricular therapy, is an alternative medicine practice claimed to improve general health and well-being by lighting one end of a hollow candle and placing the other end in the ear canal. Medical research has shown that the practice is both dangerous and ineffective and does not help remove earwax or toxicants. Edzard Ernst has published critically on the subject of ear candles, noting, "There is no data to suggest that it is effective for any condition. Furthermore, ear candles have been associated with ear injuries; the inescapable conclusion is. Their use should be discouraged."According to the US Food and Drug Administration, ear candling is sometimes promoted with claims that the practice can "purify the blood" or "cure" cancer, but that Health Canada has determined the candles have no effect on the ear, no health benefit. In October 2007, US FDA issued an alert identifying ear candles as "dangerous to health when used in the dosage or manner, or with the frequency or duration, recommended, or suggested in the labeling thereof"... "since the use of a lit candle in the proximity of a person's face would carry a high risk of causing severe skin/hair burns and middle ear damage."A 2007 paper in the journal Canadian Family Physician concludes: Ear candling appears to be popular and is advertised with claims that could seem scientific to lay people.
However, its claimed mechanism of action has not been verified, no positive clinical effect has been reliably recorded, it is associated with considerable risk. No evidence suggests. On this basis, we believe it can do more harm than good and we recommend that GPs discourage its use. A 2007 paper in American Family Physician said: Ear candling should be avoided. Ear candling is a practice in which a hollow candle is inserted into the external auditory canal and lit, with the patient lying on the opposite ear. In theory, the combination of heat and suction is supposed to remove earwax. However, in one trial, ear candles neither created suction nor removed wax and led to occlusion with candle wax in persons who had clean ear canals. Primary care physicians may see complications from ear candling including candle wax occlusion, local burns, tympanic membrane perforation; the Spokane Ear and Throat Clinic conducted a research study in 1996 which concluded that ear candling does not produce negative pressure and was ineffective in removing wax from the ear canal.
Several studies have shown that ear candles produce the same residue when burnt without ear insertion and that the residue is candle wax and soot. As of 2008, there are at least two cases in which people have set their houses on fire while ear candling, one of which resulted in death. A survey of ENT surgeons found some. Burns were the most common. One end of a cylinder or cone of waxed cloth is lit, the other is placed into the subject's ear; the flame is cut back with scissors and extinguished between five and ten centimeters from the subject. The subject is lying on one side with the candle vertical; the candle can be stuck through a paper plate or aluminium pie tin to protect against any hot wax or ash falling onto the subject. Another way to perform ear candling involves the subject lying face up with the ear candle extending out to the side with a forty-five-degree upward slant. A dish of water is placed next to the subject under the ear candle. Proponents claim that the flame creates negative pressure, drawing wax and debris out of the ear canal, which appears as a dark residue.
An ear candling session lasts up to one hour, during which one or two ear candles may be burned for each ear. In Europe, some ear candles bear the CE mark, though they are self-issued by the manufacturer; this mark indicates that the device is designed and manufactured so as not to compromise the safety of patients, but no independent testing is required as proof. While ear candles are available in the U. S. selling or importing them with medical claims is illegal. This means that one cannot market ear candles as products that "Diagnose, treat, or prevent any disease". In a report, Health Canada states "There is no scientific proof to support claims that ear candling provides medical benefits.... However, there is plenty of proof that ear candling is dangerous." It says that while some people claim to be selling the candles "for entertainment purposes only", the Canadian government maintains that there is no reasonable non-medical use, hence any sale of the devices is illegal in Canada. In a paper published by Edzard Ernst in Journal of Laryngology & Otology, the cost of practicing ear candling according to the recommended frequency of use is estimated.
As each candles costs $3.15 USD, the annual cost of the treatment would amount to $982.00 USD. The author calls the continued practice of the treatment "a triumph of ignorance over science... or a triumph of commercial interests over medical reasoning." Although Biosun, a manufacturer of ear candles, refers to them as "Hopi" ear candles, there is no such treatment within traditional Hopi healing practices. Vanessa Charles, public relations officer for the Hopi Tribal Council, has stated that ear candling "is not and has never been a practice conducted by the Hopi tribe or the Hopi people." The Hopi tribe has asked Biosun, the manufacturer of'Hopi Ear Candles', to stop usin
History of alternative medicine
The history of alternative medicine refers to the history of a group of diverse medical practices that were collectively promoted as "alternative medicine" beginning in the 1970s, to the collection of individual histories of members of that group, or to the history of western medical practices that were labeled "irregular practices" by the western medical establishment. It includes the histories of integrative medicine. "Alternative medicine" is a loosely defined and diverse set of products and theories that are perceived by its users to have the healing effects of medicine, but do not originate from evidence gathered using the scientific method, are not part of biomedicine, or are contradicted by scientific evidence or established science. "Biomedicine" is that part of medical science that applies principles of anatomy, chemistry, biology and other natural sciences to clinical practice, using scientific methods to establish the effectiveness of that practice. Much of what is now categorized as alternative medicine was developed as independent, complete medical systems, was developed long before biomedicine and use of scientific methods, was developed in isolated regions of the world where there was little or no medical contact with pre-scientific western medicine, or with each other's systems.
Examples are Traditional Chinese medicine, European humoral theory and the Ayurvedic medicine of India. Other alternative medicine practices, such as homeopathy, were developed in western Europe and in opposition to western medicine, at a time when western medicine was based on unscientific theories that were dogmatically imposed by western religious authorities. Homeopathy was developed prior to discovery of the basic principles of chemistry, which proved homeopathic remedies contained nothing but water, but homeopathy, with its remedies made of water, was harmless compared to the unscientific and dangerous orthodox western medicine practiced at that time, which included use of toxins and draining of blood resulting in permanent disfigurement or death. Other alternative practices such as chiropractic and osteopathic manipulative medicine, were developed in the United States at a time that western medicine was beginning to incorporate scientific methods and theories, but the biomedical model was not yet dominant.
Practices such as chiropractic and osteopathic, each considered to be irregular by the medical establishment opposed each other, both rhetorically and politically with licensing legislation. Osteopathic practitioners added the courses and training of biomedicine to their licensing, licensed Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine holders began diminishing use of the unscientific origins of the field, without the original practices and theories, is now considered the same as biomedicine; until the 1970s, western practitioners that were not part of the medical establishment were referred to "irregular practitioners", were dismissed by the medical establishment as unscientific or quackery. Irregular practice became marginalized as quackery and fraud, as western medicine incorporated scientific methods and discoveries, had a corresponding increase in success of its treatments. In the 1970s, irregular practices were grouped with traditional practices of nonwestern cultures and with other unproven or disproven practices that were not part of biomedicine, with the group promoted as being "alternative medicine".
Following the counterculture movement of the 1960s, misleading marketing campaigns promoting "alternative medicine" as being an effective "alternative" to biomedicine, with changing social attitudes about not using chemicals, challenging the establishment and authority of any kind, sensitivity to giving equal measure to values and beliefs of other cultures and their practices through cultural relativism, adding postmodernism and deconstructivism to ways of thinking about science and its deficiencies, with growing frustration and desperation by patients about limitations and side effects of science-based medicine, use of alternative medicine in the west began to rise had explosive growth beginning in the 1990s, when senior level political figures began promoting alternative medicine, began diverting government medical research funds into research of alternative and integrative medicine. The concept of alternative medicine is problematic as it cannot exist autonomously as an object of study in its own right but must always be defined in relation to a non-static and transient medical orthodoxy.
It divides medicine into two realms, a medical mainstream and fringe, which, in privileging orthodoxy, presents difficulties in constructing an historical analysis independent of the biased and polemical views of regular medical practitioners. The description of non-conventional medicine as alternative reinforces both its marginality and the centrality of official medicine. Although more neutral than either pejorative or promotional designations such as “quackery” or “natural medicine”, cognate terms like “unconventional”, “heterodox”, “unofficial”, “irregular”, "folk", "popular", "marginal", “complementary”, “integrative” or “unorthodox” define their object against the standard of conventional biomedicine, entail particular perspectives and judgements carry moral overtones, can be inaccurate. Conventional medical practitioners in the West have, since the nineteenth century, used some of these and similar terms as a means of defining the boundary of "legitimate" medicine, marking the division between that, scientific and that, not.
The definition of mainstream medicine understood to refer to a system of licensed medicine which enjoys state and legal protection in a jurisdiction, is al