<<And to address something mentioned previously, just because some of the peers involved in the peer-review process are CAM practitioners does not mean they are not properly analyzing the evidence or negate the peer review process. A good peer review consists of a panel of a variety of experts. Particularly in a controversial topic like CAM it will consist of both mainstream and CAM practitioners to combat accusations of bias from both sides.>>
This is a useful point, I think. It's all too easy for the defenders of a fringe hypothesis, to dismiss a lack of evidence in favor of their hypothesis as the predictable outcome of a "mainstream" institutional science set against them from the get-go. Whereas that ad hoc defense becomes a lot thinner, if there are CAM practitioners on the byline.
More tools in the rational analysis toolkit. Thank you for the expert perspective, Amanda!
PS: Friends don't let friends self-medicate with homeopathy.