Quite right Carol, there is far more than enough available on the Internet for most people to be able to do decent research. Indeed, many of the pay-to-use and member-by-profession sites offer very little more. I have the fortune of being a member of a copyright library and so get to see those closed collections when I need them and am generally none the wiser for it.
On issues like hypnotherapy and alternative therapies it is a matter of choice and information. I am of the opinion that many, not all but nonetheless too many, medical practitioners are not as straight with patients as they could be. I think far too many people undergo treatments using uninformed consent, which is to say waffling in medic-speak in such a way that those who need to give consent are completely browbeaten and with others simply proceeding as if information had been comprehensively given then consent solicited. Many medical practitioners will deny that, but that is up to them. However, those administering alternative therapies can be just as uninformative, for instance properly explaining the real advantages and disadvantages of their treatment. It is incumbent on the hypnotherapist, or whoever, to explain the advantages and disadvantages of what they are proposing, the alternatives and the possible (not 'absolutely certain') outcomes of not accepting treatment.
Research is a dangerous justification for anything on this earth, as Carol is implying, since as soon as one stage of research is completed, the next begins. Otherwise an entirely new research or a rival research. There is no domain in which research is ongoing that findings are not overhauled, updated, replaced, challenged and far more. Research only proves what went before, it does not provide any more than a hypothesis for what is to come. Thus hypnotherapy and the fickle nature of the human being are evidence of a lack of conclusive evidence as to whether it works or not since it is successful for many people and has no effect on others. I am having physiotherapy for a broken shoulder at present, occasionally my physio has tried Bowen Technique which I am informed has revolutionised physiotherapy. Whoopie! I think Tom Bowen was a very convincing quack. It does nothing for me. Many people will tell me I am wrong.
Thus, David, how do you then confront me who has worked in both impoverish, developing and isolated, rural communities where 'Western' medicine is not available but their (for want of a better word) shamanic methods work? That is folk medicine, but then is that not the ancestor of all modern medicine which is thus merely a progression? Dismissing out of hand is easy, accepting evidence often harder. To that end from scepticism in younger years I am now disgusted by the effective dumping of pharmaceutical products in small to excessive overdoses on people instead of holistic approaches to heal the main and accompanying conditions/ailments. I don't care what scientists tell me, I have spent four decades among them and their research domains are as speculative as my own but they more than we social scientists are quick to dismiss and medical science is at the forefront of that dismissive attitude.