To the downvoters: Downvoting is not supposed to be used to express disagreement.
The comment was submitted with constructive intent. Alex3917's beliefs are very different from yours -- I get that. Debate is appropriate here; downvoting the comment to oblivion is not.
The funny thing is, he hasn't once advocated homeopathy as far as I can tell. As I read it, he seems to be saying we should learn about homeopathy to see how we got where we are (i.e. what mistakes were made in the past, how can we recognize when we're looking in the wrong places, all the benefits one gets from studying history).
Where he advocates "alternative medicine" he seems to be using the definition of "alternative medicine" as "things that seem to work but are not approved by the FDA".
So you don't believe in medical research? After all, anyone who participates in a new drug investigation is by definition a consumer of 'alternative medicine', assuming you're going by the definition that others have been posting in this thread.
For my money, I don't see what could possibly be more in the spirit of the hacker philosophy than being a medical researcher, trial candidate, or early adopter. The reason the average person is able to walk into a doctors office today and usually get at least decent advice is because of the millions before them who have been willing to do the research, think for themselves, weigh the balance of evidence, make rational decisions, and document their findings.
The fact is that if Steve had died while taking part in a new drug trial as part of a clinical investigation then no one would be giving him shit; that folks are so dismissive of 'alternative' medicine has nothing to do with proven vs unproven, as if it were black and white, and everything to do with ignorance of how medical research, approval, and treatment actually work.
There are hundreds of thousands of drugs that have been studies in vitro, in animals, and in humans, but only ~1,500 new chemicals total that have ever been FDA approved. Treating FDA approval as being synonymous with evidence-based thinking just shows that people don't actually understand either. Some people don't use a drug unless it's been on the market for 20+ years, other people will try something based on a single anecdote. There is no one right answer, it depends on the balance of the evidence, ancillary beliefs, preferences, the context, etc. The right decision is different for every person and every situation, so all this purely speculative criticism of Steve Jobs' decision-making process is completely unwarranted.
I think that's a mischaracterization of medical research. New drugs and treatments don't spring forth from the ether. Progress in modern medicine is incremental and based on the methods we already know to be effective.
I expect that a trial participant would be provided a damned good, evidence-based, research-backed rationale, along with "also, there's also a good chance this won't work at all", not the promises and hand-waving proffered by the alt-med community.
Edit: Oh, Lord, you've edited your comment. Future readers, my response pertains to the first two paragraphs.
"nothing to do with proven vs unproven, as if it were black and white,"
Things are rarely black and white. But many things are #010101 and #fefefe. At best, homeopathy can work its way up to #010101 with a strong tailwind, lots of luck, and a practitioner who screws up their concentrations and accidentally delivers a dose of some substance that is actually effectual for some purpose... but that would be a banner day for homeopathy, not the normal outcome.
Your beliefs appear to require an awful lot of goalpost hiking. Why don't you rest for a bit after a long day of that and take a more careful look around the field when you're not burdened with all those goalposts on your back?
The comment was submitted with constructive intent. Alex3917's beliefs are very different from yours -- I get that. Debate is appropriate here; downvoting the comment to oblivion is not.