People talk about it all the time. The media loves to run stories on medical error rates, and Congress loves to hold hearings on the topic. The difference is that scientific medicine acknowledges that all benefits come with risks and that the effort to reduce those risks is important and must be ongoing. Homeopathy, and many other forms of CAM, argue that they are effective and risk free even if there is no evidence to support that, and then when they hurt of kill someone they distract attention from it by claiming that real medicine is even worse. Nothing si perfect, but despite all the complaints about the failings of modern medicien, we are living loinger and healthier lives than any human beings in the history of the species thanks to it. If CAM is held to the same standards of efficacy and safety maiinstream medicine is, then those pieces that prove their claims will be happily adopted and those that don’t will remain marginalized, as they should. I don’t see why this strikes anyone as unreasonable. Unfortunately, CAM too often is a form of religion in which personal experiences and testimonials (aka personal revelattion and faith) are considered adequate “proof” of absolutely anything and scientific evidence is considered irrelevant. I’d ike to see how supporters of this approach would react to a doctor who invented his own drugs based on theroies that contradicted known science and then gave them to patients with no evidence they were safe and worked. I suspect he/she’d be crucified.