In light of the Cunctator's keen observations....
I wonder what people mean when they say "most scientists believe X". This has a bearing on how we write about non-mainstream ideas such as alternative medicine.
1. What is a majority view?
If indeed 51% of scientists (or doctors holding a Western M.D. degree, or moviegoers, or Linux enthusiasts) BELIEVE A CERTAIN THING, then the article should simply report that the indicated proportion of the group in question adheres to that POV.
If the majority is larger than 51% - say, 95% - we can safely call that an "overwhelming majority". If it is 99.8% we can say "virtually all". (Note that some published writers might considered 2/3 to be "overwhelming", but that is just THEIR POV! If as many as 1/3 of a group disagree with something, our readers are better served by telling them that 2/3 of the group believe it, and that 1/3 of the group disbelieve it).
Having stated the general principle, I wonder how many are still with me? Getting bored? Angry? . . .
2. Chiropractic as an example
I'd L-O-V-E to know what proportion of Western M.D. "health professionals" give credence to any of the "alternative" practices our Wikipedia articles are starting to describe.
In two out of two cases I know of (admittedly not a 'scientific' sample), men with severe back pain got immediate, lasting relief via chiropractic. One was a soldier who said he wrenched his back when he stepped into a hole on a road march; muscle relaxants and so on tried by military doctors didn't help him at all, he said; he wound up spending his entire monthly salary on chiropractic treatment, which he said "worked".
The other case was me: I suffered a muscle spasm when I bent over to plug in a computer; after getting my back cracked at a chiropractor's office I immediately felt better and didn't even need aspirin.
Perhaps we can distinguish chiropractic's effectiveness at treating back pain, from its more general claims; there might be a part of the system which can be proven to work, even if other parts remain dismissed by M.D.'s as pseudoscientific quackery.
3. Approaches to alternative medicine
Can we generalize from how we talk about chiropractic (which seems to work for SOME complaints) to how we ought to describe other "alternative" approaches?
How about acupuncture? I've read anecdotal reports that inserting needles at certain points can dull pain, even that as intense as a woman experiences in childbirth. Surely this has been the object of controlled studies.
I just read last month about a study on Echinacea, comparing its effectiveness vs. placebo. Well, can't we report those study results?
4. Conclusion
Some people believe surgery and synthetic drugs are "bad for you" and are looking for other ways to treat ailments. I suggest we report NEUTRALLY on their motives and results.
Uncle Ed