I think that that attitude works very strongly to lead journal editors and heads of medical institutions to ignore or, at worst, to suppress evidence that comes in contrary to expectations. As a former editor, I know that's simply not true. The fact is that there have been relatively few rigorous clinical studies of alternative methods submitted to the leading peer-reviewed journals. The data submitted to the best medical journals are judged on their own basis. There is no bias, no bias at all.
Every editor wants to publish good data on new and original ideas.
I consider myself an open-minded skeptic. I think there are various ways of knowing. In sharp contrast to mainstream medicine, alternative medicine makes no distinction between objective phenomena and subjective experience, between the external world and human consciousness. This allows the practitioners of alternative medicine to believe in the power of mind and thought to change physical matter and heal organic diseases, a concept that basically contradicts the laws of physics and the modern, scientific view of nature. We know that states of mind, that emotions, can have physical consequences.