Harry: Any critical thinker is going to care. The reason is a phenomenon in research called "spontaneous remission." If you take a group of people with any given diagnosis, some of them are going to get better independently of any treatment. Also, you have the placebo effect due to power of suggestion. That's why throwing a dead cat over your head in a cemetery at midnight cures warts. Recently, a knee surgery was submitted to a placebo-controlled trial in which some people received the arthroscopic surgery and some just received an incision and sutures. The incision-only group actually recovered more function with less pain than the "treatment" group. Psychoanalysis also had similar results when it was subjected to rigorous clinical trials. TV faith healers get good results because they basically trick the brain into releasing endorphins which relieve pain and produce a mild euphoria. By the time the endorphins wear off, the person is back home thinking what a great guy the faith healer is.
Scientific evidence is what separates the scientists from the snake-oil salesmen. In the modern era, health-care consumers have to be educated and sophisticated. Actually, the reason I asked you the question about the scientific studies is that I would consider learning it and implementing it into my practice if it met standards for an effective treatment. For example, EMDR is a treatment for trauma that sounds extremely flaky. It treats trauma by incorporating visualization exercises with eye movements that simulate REM sleep. I was extremely skeptical, until I saw the placebo controlled studies showing a 70% (complete) success rate for PTSD, and significantly better than placebo. Therefore, I contacted the institute and became trained to use it.
I think you give a lot of good advice. We differ on some moral issues, but that's fine because we're both adults. I do think there is an obligation to make sure that a procedure has demonstrated effectiveness before it's promoted as a treatment for a medical condition, however.