We appreciate the insightful comments by Dr. Sandweiss and Dr. Barnes and are pleased that our taxonomy can serve as a forum to provoke discussion and debate. We do not disagree with the substance of their comments. Our disagreement has to do with our understanding that a taxonomy should be descriptive, not prescriptive.

Dr. Sandweiss suggests that we used public acceptance as our threshold of inclusion. He is right; for our purposes, the fact that people utilize and presumably believe in a practice is sufficient for space in our taxonomy. Dr. Sandweiss also feels that biomedicine should not be considered equal to shamanism. Indeed, the evidence supports his contention that such healers have unique understandings of efficacy and may be consulted for different illnesses (1, 2). The creation of distinct categories in our schema is our recognition of this argument. We differ from Dr. Sandweiss in that we wanted to provide a classification schema of all types of unconventional healing and did not want to make our classification hierarchical. Hierarchy does not help foster open discussion because it is inherently about prestige and power.

Dr. Barnes is concerned that our classification may foster divisiveness and even racism. We are glad she recognizes that we too are very concerned about such issues. Indeed, that is the reason that our system, unlike the many other classification schema we cited in our article, included and emphasized ethno-medicine and religious healing. We also agree that such ethno-medical practices as santería share roots with white New Age practices (3) and that the health food movement resembles ethno-medicine prototypes (4). We acknowledge that as cultural diversity and contact increase, any boundaries are becoming increasingly porous and imprecise. Nonetheless, it is an unfortunate and evident fact that many, if not most, ethno-medical practices are excluded and neglected in any serious discussion of CAM. As we mentioned in our article, such ostracism reflects "stubborn racist prejudices." Obviously, describing segregation and Jim Crow does not necessarily mean condoning them.

Finally, we wonder if it is purely a coincidence that both Dr. Sandweiss and Dr. Barnes commented on shamanism. Somehow, this archaic form of communication to the spirit realm still manages to provoke fear, concern, and reflection (5). Undoubtedly, this has something to do with its enduring presence in human history.