The entire premise of this discussion was that modern medicine currently has a flaw/double-standard/whatever about what it considers alternative medicine. Bringing up examples where medicine was flawed a century ago isn't exactly proving anything. I would've hoped this would be obvious but apparently it was not.
Human nature is what defines the difference between alternative and regular. It also defines what is a double standard. You didn't need to explicitly mention it for it to be relevant to the discussion.
Okay, I won't stop you. Go ahead and bring up examples from Hippocrates's time then. Human nature hasn't changed much on these timescales so you will be making a very strong point about modern medicine with such examples.
I haven't brought up examples that old, and neither has anyone else in this thread. Typical straw man. I just pointed out that you were being unnecessarily restrictive and that this would hinder the effort to get the examples you seek.
In many ways modern medicine changed a lot in the last half century. Similarly to how modern culture changed a lot. In particular the way in which we believe we have discovered everything there is to know is constantly evolving.
Not all hyperbole are straw men, the original question was about how the current distinction between medicine and non-medicine works. Historical examples are relevant, but not what intended in the question.
