<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
![][1] Few things are more infuriating than watching an argument where both protagonists are wrong. This is how I feel watching debates about complementary medicine. Both sides have misunderstood something fundamental. The argument, in a much shortened version, goes a little like this: > Scientist:‘ We’ve tested your alternative medicines in high quality randomised controlled trials and they don’t work.’ > CAM Advocate:‘ They do too. Your scientific tests are very reductionistic. Our ways have been used for a long time and they are natural and safe. People say they feel better. Of course they work.’ > Scientist:‘ No. Actually they don’t work. I can prove it. You’re … [1]: /embed/graphic-1.gif
Complementary Therapies, Placebos, Evidence-Based Medicine, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Complementary Therapies, Placebos, Evidence-Based Medicine, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |