I have commented before on how easy it is to discredit something by setting up your own criteria, and then announcing that it has failed to meet them.  Just off the top of my head, consider the study that found St. John's Wort failed to help major depression .  What a lot of publicity that got, with not one of the reporting entities thinking to mention that - wait for it - NO-ONE EVER CLAIMED IT DID.  That's right - St. John's Wort has only ever been recommended for minor depression, and as the National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine says:

An analysis of the results of 37 clinical trials concluded that St. John's wort may have only minimal beneficial effects on major depression. However, the analysis also found that St. John's wort may benefit people with minor depression; these benefits may be similar to those from standard antidepressants. Overall, St. John's wort appeared to produce fewer side effects than some standard antidepressants.  (my emphasis).

In much the same way, the words "evidence based medicine" are often used to discredit alternative treatments,  the implications being that since they cannot pass the same standard as allopathic medicine, they are not effective.

That is why I found this report in Dr. Moss's newsletter so interesting:  talk about payback! The British Medical Journal of Clinical Evidence has found that of around 2500 prescription treatments evaluated by a panel of experts, only 13% were definitely beneficial, while an amazing 46% showed no evidence of usefulness whatsoever.  Take that, big Pharma!

Are most current medical treatments backed by solid evidence of effectiveness?