Yes, there are old ways that have been proven wrong, which were based on ignorance at the time, but there are also old ways which are totally legit and are little known or accepted nowadays based on today's ignorance.
In most cases when we do find evidence for something clinically relevant in traditional medicine we either discover that the effect is something other than it is traditionally associated with and/or that you need to take it at extreme doses for it to do anything at all.
- From a strictly scientific standpoint, wouldn't it be interesting to properly understand why and how it works?
- From a purely practical standpoint, who cares about any of that if not only it works, but is also better and healthier than what you might get prescribed at the doctor's?*
* yes, in some cases, not all.
Personally I think it would be, but I think people who actually engage in using traditional medicine couldn't care less how it works beyond making it sound even more magical and spooky.
> From a purely practical standpoint, who cares about any of that if not only it works, but is also better and healthier than what you might get prescribed at the doctor's?*
I don't think most people engaged in traditional medicine care about it actually being healthier, again because they are first and foremost interested in the ritual and cultural aspects rather than the effectiveness of the active ingredients.
My reason for believing this is that people consistently ignore evidence that their favourite magical plant does nothing. And that even when there is evidence to support it, they frequently ignore all findings about effective doses and treatment plans in favour of doing the "natural" thing like making into tea or putting it in orifices you aren't meant to put plants in.
I think you're repeatedly resorting to all manner of generalisations. Maybe that's your experience, and all that you've seen. While I've seen a bit of that too, I've also seen quite the contrary, very smart and learned people scientifically exploring fringe approaches in order to obtain results.
I could give you some personal and near examples of that if it were to mean something.
There's also quite a lot in natural medicine (including papers and proper scientific studies, if that's the only thing that matters to you) if you look into it.
Telling that person apart from the sea of charlatans complicates things a bit. They're not the people who launch their careers with Oprah's help and spawn a million others riding in their wake.
> Telling that person apart from the sea of charlatans complicates things a bit.
Peer review (for all its faults) and clinical trials that inform evidence based medicine. That’s how you tell them apart.
There are many reasons why this is not true. One of them is profits, another one (at least where I live) is the mass oriented, streamlined healthcare, in which there are not enough resources to treat you as an individual, but rather as a number, a small part of an average.
For these reasons, as an example among others, when a woman goes to the doctor because her period is painful, they'll prescribe her birth control pills rather than raspberry leaf tea.