{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01779935275080906, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.316326530612245, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The politics of evidence and the evidence for CAM.

This commentary takes up issues from the lead paper by reference to the situation in Australia and New Zealand. It briefly canvasses issues of nomenclature, increasing utilization, the postmodern thesis, the nature of evidence and the impact of the social movement toward evidence-based medicine and broader questions of legitimacy. The author argues that, sociologically speaking, while evidence of effectiveness is increasingly important, it will never be the whole story of where complementary and alternative medicine fits into the health services of the nation.