Final answer:
The alternative cancer treatment in question may be effective when judged by criteria appropriate to the method, acknowledging that scientific evidence is important for mainstream acceptance but not always the sole measure of a treatment's efficacy. History shows that medical practices evolve and can be re-evaluated, and traditional therapies may offer contextually relevant benefits.
Step-by-step explanation:
When evaluating the effectiveness of an alternative cancer treatment that lacks formal scientific evidence, it's important to consider various perspectives. With regard to the effectiveness of the therapy in question, which includes herbs, massage, and meditation, answer c) the treatment may be effective judged by criteria appropriate to the alternative method is most accurate. This perspective allows room for alternative healing methods to be beneficial according to their own criteria, even if scientific evidence has yet to substantiate such claims.
Historical examples, such as the long-held practice of bloodletting which was eventually disproved, suggest that medical practices can evolve and that effectiveness may be re-evaluated over time. Furthermore, while traditional cancer treatments like chemotherapy and radiation therapy are well-established and scientifically proven, they too have limitations and side effects. Therefore, openness to other healing paradigms, like the immune-boosting approaches of some alternative therapies, is worth exploration, though rigorous scientific validation remains essential for widespread acceptance.
Many traditional therapies also incorporate spiritual and cultural healing practices, which suggests that the efficacy of such treatments can be context-dependent and culturally specific. In summary, while scientific validation is critical for mainstream acceptance, the absence of scientific evidence does not definitively conclude that a treatment is ineffective, especially when judged by alternative or traditional criteria.