No one characteristic signals the presence of fraud in medical treatment, but anyone who reviews the bases for the claims can detect it if they understand a few basic principles about evaluating evidence. The mechanisms by which these treatments supposedly work have been published, and can be scientifically evaluated. There is no way to prove that these powers exist and can cause healing, so their acceptance depends entirely on the patients' willingness to blindly believe testimonials. However, they know that just offering a new treatment will boost a patient's spirits, cause an increase in appetite and even reduce the perception of pain. These subjective improvements are not proof that a treatment works.
Proof comes with supporting and concomitant evidence.
It is the consistency and predictability with which patients respond to a treatment that is significant. Any unpredictable improvement that occurs sporadically may not be due to the treatment itself and therefore cannot be claimed as proof of its . To do so, he knows he must present data that supports his conclusions and can be independently reproduced by other scientists. What is relevant in proving the curative value of any treatment is not the reputation of its proponent, the persuasiveness of his theory, the eminence of his political supporters, the anecdotes of his patients or the lack of confidence that layman may have in the medical establishment. It is whether the treatment can be shown to work in rigorously controlled, objectively interpreted independent clinical trials.