How many of these red flags of pseudoscience does new age "medicine" tick?

Question

Marks of pseudoscience:

Has failed to convince many mainstream scientists of its truth

Is not based on experiments that can be reproduced by others

Contains experimental flaws or is based on data that does not convincingly corroborate the experimenter’s theoretical claims

Comes from overconfident fringe "experts"

Uses over-simplified interpretations of legitimate studies and may combine with imprecise, spiritual or new age vocabulary, to form new, completely untested theories.

Speaks dismissively of mainstream science

http://blog.tedx.com/post/37405280671/a-letter-to-the-tedx-community-on-tedx-and-bad-science

Answer 1

Regular (mainstream) medicine is science-based, but its top level is applied statistics, so it shows marks of pseudoscience, as a concept. Apart from that, the reality shows that diagnostics can be person-dependent, which is also a mark of pseudoscience. Or what do you mean with new age medicine?

Answer 2

Back in Ignaz Semmelweis' day (early to mid 1800's) mainstream science didn't believe in hand washing. He was considered a fringe "expert". It was dismissed by mainstream science as nonsense. Doctors where flat out insulted that they were expected to wash their hands. How could their handling of corpses possibly be causing the high infant and mother mortality rate?



Some alternative options are bogus. They have been disproved time and again. Others, we don't fully understand how they work.



Some have no explanation under our current understanding.

Answer 3

you have just described mainstream medicine to a "t".