Alternative medicine has been considered the “hidden mainstream” of patient care in America. As biomedicine has increased in popularity, alternative methods of healing have arisen in response to the treatments used by doctors. Historically, alternative (or "complementary") medicine has expressed itself by highlighting its "natural" attributes. These characteristics attracted those who were wary of the chemicals used in allopathic medicines. Much of the skepticism that has accompanied complementary alternative medicine (CAM) stems from the lack of scientifically based evidence demonstrating its effectiveness; there is no "alternative" medicine, there is simply an "unproven" medicine (Fontanarosa and Lundberg 1618). This argument suggests that medicine and healing are inherently scientific and avoid the cultural and spiritual aspects of the healing process. However, alternative medicine has been increasingly incorporated into biomedical practice and more and more research initiatives are working to demonstrate its effectiveness. An important advance has been the relationship between allopathic doctors and alternative medicine. Throughout the history of alternative medicine, there have been some doctors who have promoted “alternative” treatments. This campaign may have led to further acceptance and use of CAM. In this essay I will explore the boundaries between alternative medicine and biomedicine, describe physicians' involvement in alternative practices, and shed light on the tensions surrounding this relationship. The nineteenth century served as the basis for many types of alternative medicine that have developed into practices still used in contemporary times. Many of these original alternative practices have doctors in two… halves of the article… saying their health is improving. This tension has been easing as more and more physicians have been exposed to the idea of ​​alternative treatments used in a complementary manner to allopathic prescriptions (Kaptchuk and Eisenberg 201). Discussion of such models continues to occur. The growing acceptance of CAM by physicians demonstrates that as physicians become more involved in alternative practices and keep their patients' interests in mind, tensions against alternative medicines can be resolved. The boundary between alternative and conventional is not always defined; it is flexible and has become increasingly malleable as time advances and more light is shed on alternative practices. Fontanorosa and Lundberg are right that all these forms of treatment are indeed medicine, but scientific boundaries cannot encompass the realm of the alternative.