There's an awful lot of stuff that works, that nobody has run a large enough controlled study to prove it works. The organizations which fund medical research have specific priorities that exclude an awful lot. And a lot of things are just inherently difficult to objectively measure or control. There's no blood test for chronic muscle tension, for example.
So unfortunately, by restricting yourself to things that have been proven to work, you are possibly eliminating a lot of things that work.
But of course, trying to figure out, on your own, which stuff actually does work despite not being proven, is a long hard frustrating slog that tends to involve a lot of personal trial and error. Exactly what GP said:
> The difficult part is figuring out what's true and what's quackery.
Alternative medicine is simply any therapy that is not included in the established currently-accepted set of treatment options.
This varies by culture, time, and sometimes by individual.
Most alternatives are not better than the currently-known best. This is true today, we think, but it is definitely not true historically. (So how special is our current era?)
But when the currently-known best doesn't work well for everyone, or has deleterious side effects, any continued research will include alternatives.
I understand the fatigue embedded in your quote. It's a reasonable stance for those of us with ordinary concerns and who are far downstream from the research (including and especially retail practitioners).
But it is too broadly dismissive for real scientists and people who maintain a curiosity about the world.
