Billions Already Use Traditional Medicine. Now the WHO Wants Proof It Works

For centuries, traditional medicine has been used to treat pain, manage chronic illness, and support emotional well-being across cultures. Today, those practices are not fringe alternatives. According to the World Health Organization, billions of people worldwide rely on traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM)—including yoga, acupuncture, herbal remedies, and Indigenous healing systems—as part of their routine healthcare.

In late 2025, the WHO made a consequential move: launching a coordinated global effort to rigorously evaluate these practices using modern scientific standards. The goal is not to dismiss traditional medicine—but to determine what works, what is safe, and what should be regulated before being integrated into mainstream care.

This shift reflects a growing reality. While biomedical medicine has transformed acute care and infectious disease management, gaps remain—particularly in chronic disease treatment, cultural relevance, and access. The WHO’s new strategy acknowledges that evidence-based integration of traditional medicine could expand safe care options globally, but only if claims are tested with the same rigor applied to pharmaceuticals and medical devices.

This article explores what the WHO’s Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025–2034 actually includes, where scientific evidence is strongest, where it remains limited, and how patients and clinicians should navigate traditional remedies within evidence-based care.

What the WHO’s Strategy Actually Includes

In May 2025, WHO member states formally adopted the Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025–2034, marking the first comprehensive international framework to address TCIM through a scientific and regulatory lens. The strategy aims to move traditional medicine out of a regulatory gray zone and into structured health systems—without abandoning scientific standards.

Central to this effort is the WHO Global Traditional Medicine Centre (GTMC), based in India, which coordinates research, policy development, and regulatory guidance. The strategy prioritizes four pillars:

• Evidence generation through clinical research, data collection, and standardized methodologies
• Safety and quality regulation for products and practices
• Health system integration, positioning traditional therapies as complementary—not alternative—to biomedical care
• Community and cross-sector collaboration, ensuring culturally relevant and accessible implementation

To support this work, the WHO launched the Traditional Medicine Global Library, a searchable database containing more than 1.5 million records on traditional medicine research, policies, and regulatory frameworks. The goal is transparency: policymakers and clinicians can now assess what evidence exists—and what does not—rather than relying on anecdote or tradition alone.

The WHO has also convened the Strategic and Technical Advisory Group on Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine (STAG-TM), bringing scientific oversight to a field long criticized for uneven standards and inconsistent claims.

Where Evidence is Strong, and Where It Still Needs Proof

Traditional medicine is not a monolith. Scientific support varies widely across practices.

Where evidence is strongest:

• Acupuncture has been supported by randomized controlled trials for certain conditions, including chronic pain syndromes and chemotherapy-related nausea, when used alongside conventional treatment.
• Yoga and meditation have been linked to improvements in sleep quality, stress biomarkers, and mental well-being in controlled studies, supporting their role as adjunctive therapies.

Where complexity increases:
Herbal medicine presents both promise and risk. Some of the world’s most effective pharmaceuticals—such as artemisinin for malaria—originated from traditional plant-based treatments. At the same time, most herbal remedies lack large-scale, high-quality clinical trials. Product composition can vary widely, increasing the risk of contamination, inconsistent dosing, or drug interactions.

Where evidence remains limited:
Many traditional systems—including certain Ayurvedic or Indigenous remedies—are supported by historical use but lack rigorous placebo-controlled trials. That does not mean they are ineffective; it means their benefits, risks, and mechanisms are not yet well defined.

The WHO’s position is explicit: “traditional” does not automatically mean “effective.” Scientific evaluation is necessary to distinguish beneficial therapies from those that may be ineffective—or harmful.

Safety, Regulation, and Integrative Frameworks

Integration requires safeguards—not blind acceptance. Globally, between 40 and 90 percent of populations report using some form of TCIM. That scale of use creates urgency around safety and regulation.

Unregulated traditional medicine carries real risks:

• Variable product quality and contamination
• Inconsistent practitioner training
• Dangerous interactions between herbal products and prescription medications

The WHO strategy emphasizes that traditional medicine must meet evidence-based safety and quality standards comparable to those applied to conventional treatments. Integration is framed as complementary, not substitutive. Traditional practices should support biomedical care—not replace proven interventions for serious illness.

In practice, this means closer collaboration between traditional practitioners and licensed clinicians, shared documentation, and clearer regulatory oversight.

What This Means for Patients and Clinicians

A framework for informed, safe decision-making.

For patients and healthcare providers, the WHO initiative reinforces several critical principles:

• “Natural” does not equal safe. Herbal and traditional products should be evaluated for quality, dosing, and interactions.
• Communication matters. Patients should disclose all traditional therapies to clinicians to avoid harmful interactions.
• Evidence should guide use. Preference should be given to practices supported by peer-reviewed research, not anecdote.
• Complementary care works best. Integrative approaches—such as combining acupuncture with physical therapy—may improve outcomes when used appropriately.

The WHO’s strategy offers clinicians a global framework to assess traditional therapies responsibly, without dismissing cultural practices or compromising patient safety.

Conclusion

The WHO’s Global Traditional Medicine Strategy marks a turning point. Traditional and complementary practices are no longer being treated as fringe or unquestioned—they are being evaluated with scientific rigor, regulatory oversight, and public health accountability.

For patients, this promises clearer guidance on what is safe and effective. For clinicians, it offers tools to integrate culturally relevant therapies without abandoning evidence-based standards. And for global health systems, it reflects a broader recognition: meaningful healthcare must be both scientifically sound and culturally responsive.

As this strategy unfolds through 2034, traditional medicine will increasingly be defined not by tradition alone—but by data, safety, and measurable outcomes.

Sources

World Health Organization

WHO Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025–2034

Pan American Health Organization

‍