User:Rmukh17/sandbox

For page: Alternative medicine

I would like to make the following addition to the "Efficacy" section:

The NCCIH has often been criticized for its low standards for funding alternative medicine research. Such criticisms have garnered national attention, forcing the NCCIH to publish a post on its site asserting its scientific credibility. One of the main critiques has been that peer reviews of grant proposals are often performed by CAM practitioners instead of health experts. As a result, many ineffectual grant proposals have been supported. One such example is a study funded by the NCCIH which found that cranberry juice cocktail was no better at preventing urinary tract infections than the placebo. Many similar questionable research proposals have been funded by the NCCIH .This has taken away much-needed funding from researching alternative treatments that may actually work, further perpetuating the stigma of CAM as scientific quackery.