Think and demonstrate are two very different things.  As requested before,
please show bias on the scientific level for quackwatch by showing cherry
picking of research and/or fraud in some context.  At quackwatch each
topic is covered by a review of research relating to the claims of the
topic, it is at that level bias must be demonstrated.  The link below is a
discussion board which does not rise to the level of the above.

I understand your personal reasons to use them, it still doesn't change
the reality of cam.  Few clinical confirmations across the board they work
and/or are safe.  That is just one of those nagging facts that refuse to
go away.  What might be when and if clinical research is done some day is
no substitute for effective and safe.  I follow several journals and see
real research being done on some "traditional" drugs, that is good.  A
great majority of them involve isolating the active substance thought to
be the real possible cause for possible clinical results.  That is far
from the "traditional" trial and error the humans are the lab rats methods
cam employs, which still leave in the end all the questions at the start
of effective and safe because clinical demonstrated results are
impossible.  All the positive feelings toward cam can not erase this
hurdle which solution still means research.