The authors provide some specifications regarding the correct terminology to be applied in the field of complementary medicine, and review and comment on several complementary treatments for psoriasis. Putative psychotherapeutic equivalents are kept distinct from treatments based on the surreptitious administration of physical or pharmacologic agents. Limits on the application of psychotherapeutic techniques are discussed. Risks inherent to complementary treatments (psychological derangements, moral subjugation, physical damage, economic exploitation) are underscored. The authors plead for the application of adequate scientific criticism in complementary medicine, but warn that any approach to the practice of medicine which is not disinterested and patient oriented--as the academic one should be--will be inappropriate, misleading, or even immoral. In the authors' opinion, this could also apply to the evidence-based medicine movement (often perceived as the archenemy of alternative medicine), should this movement be influenced by economical, political, or other nonmedical factors.