K, so the title's a pun; I'm not filled with that much vitriol, thanks in no small part to my positive outlook, which is, according to Dr. Parikh, unproven medicine that should by no means be advocated.

Salon.com, as it's name suggests, is a forum. Experts get to post articles on the front page, but the dialog is supposed to go both ways. And while there are many insightful comments on Dr. Parikh's most recent article, which should be giving him food for thought, my guess is that he hasn't read a one. I hope I'm wrong.

Dr. Parikh lashes out an Oprah, and rightfully so, for carelessly advocating unproven and harmful procedures including "cutting edge" hormone therapies and plastic surgeries. But then he goes ahead and lashes out at her for carelessly advocating unproven but harmless and purely beneficial "procedures," that I'll lump under the umbrella of "holistic" medicine. Why? Solely because the mainstream medical community hasn't found any benefit to them.

Simply put, holistic medicine means considering the state of your entire life as the cause of a disease. To the holistic practitioner, your heart troubles may have as much to do with a recent divorce as anything else -- your high cholesterol is simply the physical manifestation of the angst your feeling. The holistic practitioner might also consider your environment, your diet, your work, your family history, and yes, what medications you're taking. In other words, it's all taken into account. Patients are treated as individuals, and so are their diseases. 

Now, many of the therapies -- from opening up your throat chakra through yoga to acupuncture to change in diet to therapy to reforming your personal life -- may not be medically proven. Of course, these activities are not pills. The quality and nature of their implementation varies dramatically by doctor and patient. In short, they resist analysis by the scientific method.

They do all have one thing in common, though -- their side effects are roundly positive. If nothing else, yoga relieves stress, gets you in better shape, and best of all, leaves you feeling happier than you were before you did it. A harsh chemical medicine or invasive surgery does none of these things, even when it corrects the underlying problem. I'm not saying invasive treatments are never warranted, but this doesn't change the fact that they are invasive. Nor does it change the fact that therapy, exercise, and improved diet are ALWAYS warranted.

Recently, the mainstream medical community has largely turned against prostate cancer screenings. Why? Screening for this usually benign cancer causes patients to seek treatments that, statistically, shorten their lifespans. Typical holistic therapies like yoga and acupuncture are not always advocated in lieu of their mainstream alternatives, but many do refuse mainstream treatment in favor of these "unproven" therapies. This is what rubs doctors like Parikh the wrong way -- you're killing people by convincing them not to see a "real" doctor. But are people really being put at huge risk by avoiding the hospital all together? 

There's a more important question, though, than whether or not "alternative" doctors are generally shortening or lengthening people's lifespans (fact is, the only things that have significantly increased most peoples' lifespans are basic sanitation measures).  Rather, the question is, do these holistic therapies improve the quality of what remains of a person's life? 

I'm not going to answer for anyone. I'm not going to berate them, either.