From what I understand, your main point is that there is no need to call it "alternative" medicine because something is either medicine or it is not.

I agree with your sentiment. The problem lies with our current crop of medical professionals. Many doctors do not continue learning after residency. They tend to get stuck in their habits and stay there. Those that do continue to learn often will not look at anything unless it is a traditional pharmaceutical drug.

To give you an example, if a woman presents with menstruation issues most doctors will prescribe a progesterone product of some sort. This will jump-start a woman's cycle. On the surface, the problem is solved.

Dig deeper, and you find studies like this one (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039128X99...) which present clear evidence that simply getting vitamin D levels normalized might solve the deeper problem, with essentially zero side effects, and restore the menstrual cycle.

Many doctors would never think to do this, because it simply doesn't fit into the current traditional-medicine paradigm. This paradigm is basically, "Find symptoms, diagnose, prescribe pharmaceutical drug." Even if non-pharmaceutical drugs (such as vitamin D) exist for the disease, doctors won't use them.

AFAIK, Europe and Japan are light years ahead on this front. They act more according to your philosophy, "If it's medicine, we will use it." But in the US, almost all traditional doctors fit into the pharmaceutical mold.

This, in my opinion, is what is meant by "alternative" in alternative medicine. It is an alternative to the paradigm of "pharmaceuticals only," and not what you imply, an "alternative to medicine."

The next thing you said is "but it's unrealistic to expect things to sink into the mainstream when research can only currently suggest rather than actively recommend."

All drugs (pharmaceutical or otherwise) fit into this category. The research comes out, which suggests a certain outcome. Doctors look at the research (or in many cases they read pamphlets or marketing material from pharmaceutical companies or follow recommendations from their hospital employer), and if they find the research compelling they will recommend the drug based on that. This is true of all medicine, and peer-reviewed research is the best way to get a good picture of what the science currently says. You seem to suggest that peer-reviewed research only carries a small amount of weight, and I respectfully disagree.

Finally, hand-picking antioxidants and setting it up against surgery and pharmaceuticals is a straw-man. For every disease, you will find a variety of potential treatments. You will find treatments from the world of surgery, from pharmaceutical medicine, and from non-pharmaceutical medicine. A good doctor (or a motivated and intelligent patient) has the task of sifting through the research to find out which option is best, or if a variety of options should be combined.

To use your example on cancer, popping some antioxidants isn't the alternative to pharmaceuticals and surgery. A complete solution that takes into account the whole picture is the reasonable answer.

That will probably include things like the following:

* Surgery if it is the type of cancer that can be treated with surgery

* Pharmaceutical drugs that have shown promise in treating that particular cancer

* Checking and maximizing vitamin D blood levels (helps the cells express p53, among other things, which helps cancer cells begin apoptosis aka suicide)

* Checking and maximizing intracellular magnesium levels (very important co-factor for vitamin D)

* Ensuring powerful anti-cancer antioxidants are in the diet (spirulina, chlorella, resveratrol, etc.)

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. :-) I'm pre-med, and I feel quite strongly about the subject. Sorry for the essay!