‘scientific basis’

The political agenda to further anthroposophic medicine in the EU now supposedly has a scientific basis. Or so it is said. The International Federation of Anthroposophic Medical Association writes:

ivaa_121202.pngI’m unsure what they mean when they talk about a ‘scientific basis’. Presumably the answer is to be found among the documents here. Although, to me, their nature seems more political and ideological than concerned with anything scientific. None of the documents seem to provide any scientific evidence as to the efficacy of anthroposophical medicine, which, I would propose, is reasonably needed for a ‘scientific basis’ to the political demands put forward. I guess it’s close-minded to assume that a scientific basis would require more than popular demand, et c. With the logic of the three points above, one could just as easily suggest there’s a scientific basis for the claim that god is real: lots of people believe in his existence and boldly demand that others recognize and respect it too (and even pay for it), accurate information about him is scant (as is any objective evidence of the efficacy of his ways), and anyone can claim to be his prophet, messenger or interpreter without being restricted by any state or EU regulations whatsoever, as far as I’m aware. The same seems to apply for anthroposophical medicine, and I’m not sure why this topic ought to be of any interest to anyone but those who believe in these things — and they can then pay for it and for any spiritual benefits themselves. Because the positive scientific basis simply isn’t there — other than as a hope or possibly, when a supposed remedy’s material efficacy has already been disproven, a fantasy.