In many ways, I preferred this book over the one of 100 years of quackery. It did put a lot of effort into examining the claims and validity of the same about alternative medicine. And it emphasized what made for the difference between conventional medicine and STRICTLY alternative. It took efforts to not out right call all alternative medicine "quackery", but it definitely pointed out when there was no evidence of healing involved! It also was sure to include that treatments that previously determined to be ineffective and/or harmful have sometimes since been reevaluated.
Lack of popularity – amongst citizens or doctors – is NOT enough to claim our treatment useless. I find that I suffer from a form of confirmation bias, in that I don't believe in any of this crap, but I appreciate the findings of measured/limited good from seemingly ridiculous claims, simply because experiments have not totally discounted them. The necessity to keep an open mind, particularly because there are those believe very strongly in these things, is paramount.
Outspoken and opinionated, me? Never…