A comment by Composer99
"Misinformed consent" rears its ugly head in Pediatrics : Respectful Insolence.
You seem to be making a very standard logical inference error which we see time and again on the part of apologists for quackery CAM:
Premise #1: Big Pharma is tainted (lawsuits, demonstrated corruption, thalidomide, whatever turns your crank)
Premise #2: ????? (maybe a miracle occurs?)
Conclusion: Quackery CAM works.
As you can see, unless the second premise can be filled in with acceptable evidence, the conclusion simply does not follow from the first premise.
Comments