> I don't require any evidence, if given practitioner helps me with my problem, while traditional ones can't. Let's say you wake up with back pain, and there's

> I don't require any evidence, if given practitioner helps me with my problem, while traditional ones can't. Let's say you wake up with back pain, and there's nothing obviously wrong with your spine. You can go to a physical therapist, and they will check your spine and muscles, move your body, tell you to do some exercises to improve your posture. There is no clear diagnosis beyond some muscle tension and no immediate relief, and you are disappointed, and when the pain goes away on its own in a few days you think visiting the therapist was pointless. You tell your friends how pointless traditional medicine is. Or you visit a chiropracter. He tells you a very satisfying diagnosis, promises to heal you, and makes a few movements that feel surprising. You are impressed. After a few days the pain is completely gone! You are stoked! This person healed you! You don't need evidence from scientific trials, because you experienced the power of alternative medicine yourself!! You tell all your friends how you were healed by this persons magic hands! Of course, without any treatment at all, the pain would also have gone away after a few days. This is why we need evidence based medicine. (And this of course applies to traditional medicine as well -- just because real doctors went to university doesn't make them immune to this problems. There are plenty of doctors who prescribe inefficient treatments.)