In concurrent times, an inclination to subscribe to alternative forms of medicines is on the rise. Some vehemently deride this shift and suggest that these methods are dangerous and uncertain. I completely agree with the given statement. I will elucidate my view in the following paragraphs.
This view is primarily promoted by modern medicine practitioners who suggest that neither there is any evidence available about what ingredients are used in the formulation of medications - in other than the allopathic system - nor are these tested and certified by the recognized university or laboratory. However, modern dispensation is duly researched as per up-to-date norms and verified under the watchful eyes of scientists and doctors. In addition, there is no clear mention about what principles, methods and theories are deployed in unorthodox treatment while prescribing treatment, and how long intervention is likely to continue.
Nevertheless, some who lobby for/rally behind the notion that former views represent unfounded fears. This partisan group claims that natural medicines completely depend on natural ingredients and aim at eradicating the disease from its roots, while the contemporary system is simply meant to suppress pain temporarily and does not offer permanent remedies for most of the disease and afflictions. Also, this view also banks on the belief that concepts such as Ayurveda, Homeopathy, and so on, have been used for centuries, but modern medicines evolved only in the 19th century after the advent of concepts enacted by the Lister revolution, and before that the human race was completely dependent on alternative forms of medicines.
Thus, it would be wrong to promote the notion that ancient systems of treating diseases and ailments can jeopardize human health since these have existed for eons(ages) together. I strongly feel that today a blend of both the methods should be used to alleviate sufferings of people.
