It is time for conventional medical experts to prove the science behind medicine by demonstrating successful outcomes of patients, non-toxic and affordable.
It is time to review the scientific method to deal with the complexity of alternative treatments.
The U.S. government delay has confirmed that millions of Americans have known personally for decades – acupuncture works. A 12-member panel of “experts” to the National Institute of Health (NIH), his godfather, that acupuncture is “clearly effective” for the treatment of certain conditions, such as fibromyalgia, tennis elbow, pain after dental surgery, nausea during pregnancy, nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy.
The panel was less convinced that acupuncture is suitable as the only treatment for headaches, asthma, addiction, menstrual cramps, and others.
The NIH panel said, “there are a number of cases” in which acupuncture works. Because treatment has fewer side effects and is less invasive than conventional treatments, “it’s time to get serious” and “expand its use into conventional medicine.”
This development is, of course, welcome, and the field of alternative medicine should be pleased with this progressive step.
However, upon approval by the NIH and the “legitimacy” qualified acupuncture is a deeper issue that was to come in the light of the assumption so ingrained in our society to be almost invisible to the eyes of all but the most demanding.
The assumption is that these “experts” have the right medicine and qualified to pass judgment on the scientific merits and therapeutic modalities of alternative medicine.
They are not.
Question hinges on the definition and scope of the term “scientific”. The news is full of complaints of alleged medical experts that alternative medicine is not “scientific” and not “proven”. However, we have never heard these experts take a moment of your reproach examine the principles and assumptions of their precious scientific method to see if they are valid.
Again, they are not.
Medical historian L. Harris Coulter, Ph.D., author of the historical four-volume history of Western medicine, called split inheritance, first drew my attention to a crucial but unrecognized distinction. The question we should ask is whether conventional medicine is scientific. Dr. Coulter argues convincingly that it is not.
More than 2500 years, Western medicine has been divided by a schism between two powerful opposing ways of seeing, physiology, health and healing, says Dr. Coulter. What we now call conventional medicine (or allopathy) was once known as the rationalist medicine, alternative medicine, in the history of Dr. Coulter is called evidence-based medicine. Rationalist Medicine is based on reason and the dominant theory, while medicine is based on empirical evidence and real life experience – what works.
Dr. Coulter made some surprising observations on the basis of this distinction. Conventional medicine is abroad, both in the spirit and structure of the scientific method of research, said. His concepts are constantly changing with the latest developments. Yesterday was the germ theory, and today is genetics, tomorrow, who knows?
With each mode change in medical thinking, conventional medicine has to pull his orthodoxy now outdated and impose new until you change it again. This is a drug based on abstract theory, the facts of the organization should be adjusted to meet these theories or dismissed as irrelevant.
Doctors of this persuasion accept a dogma of faith and impose their patients, until proven otherwise, or dangerous for the next generation. They are driven by abstract ideas and forget living patients. As a result, the diagnosis is not directly related to repairs, the link is more a matter of guesswork than science. This approach, says Dr. Coulter is “inherently imprecise, approximate and unstable, is a dogma of authority, and not science.” Even if only one method works, is preserved in the books because the theory says it’s good “science.”
Moreover, the empirical medical professionals, or others, do your homework: examine patients, determine all contributing causes, notice any symptoms, and treatment outcomes observed.
Homeopathy and Chinese medicine are excellent examples of this approach. The two terms can be added to the doctors, because in these areas and other alternative practices are constantly looking for new information on the basis of their clinical experience.
This is the meaning of the empirical: based on experience, then continually tested and refined – but not invented or discarded – the doctor’s daily practice with real patients. For this reason, homeopathic remedies are not exceeded, the acupuncture treatment strategies are no longer relevant.
Alternative medicine is demonstrated daily in the clinical experience of physicians and patients. It has been proven for ten years and was tested in ten years. According to Dr. Coulter, alternative medicine is more scientific in the true sense of the West, the so-called scientific medicine.
Unfortunately, we see too often in conventional medicine is a drug or procedure “proven” as effective and accepted by the FDA and other agencies should be removed a few years later, when it was proven to be toxic dysfunction or death.
The futility of conventional medicine and its “science” is that substances and procedures must pass the double blind study to test its effectiveness. However, the double-blind method as the most suitable for scientific alternative medicine? Not.
Guidelines and limitations of science should be revised to include the clinical subtlety and complexity revealed by alternative medicine. As a test method, double blind study examines a single substance or process in a controlled environment isolated, and the measurement results with a method or vacuum or inactive substance (placebo) to be sure that no subjective factors on the road . The approach is based on the assumption that the simple cause factors and reverse the disease, and can be studied alone, out of context, and isolation.
The double-blind, although taken uncritically to the golden rule of modern science, is actually misleading, even useless when used to study alternative medicine. We know that no factor does anything, nor is there a “magic bullet” that can only reverse conditions. Multiple factors contribute to the onset of a disease and multiple modalities must work together to bring about healing.
Equally important is to understand that this multiplicity of causes and cures takes place in individual patients, no two are alike in psychology, history and biochemistry. Two men, two of whom are 35 and have the same symptoms of influenza are not necessarily and automatically condition itself, should not receive the same treatment. They could, but you can not count on it.
The double blind method is incapable of accommodating this level of medical complexity and variation, but are physiological events of life. Any approach that claims to be scientific is to exclude this empirical study real data ownership is obviously not true science.
In a profound sense, the double blind method can not prove alternative medicine is effective because it is not scientific enough. It is subtle and complex and broad to encompass the realities of alternative medicine clinics.
If you rely on the double blind study to validate alternative medicine, you will end up doubly blind to the reality of medicine.
Listen carefully the next time you hear medical “experts” whining that the substance or method was not “scientifically” evaluated in a double-blind and therefore not yet “proven” effective. They are trying to deceive and intimidate you. Ask them how “scientific” proof underlies using chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer or angioplasty for heart disease. The fact is that very little.
Try to change the situation. Experts Demand scientifically prove the effectiveness of some of their cows, such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer, angioplasty and bypass heart disease, or a hysterectomy for uterine problems. Efficacy has not been proven, and that can not be proven.
There is no need for professionals and consumers of alternative medicine as supplicants waiting hat in hand to the scientific “experts” of conventional medicine to distribute some bit condescending official approval for alternative approaches.
Instead, informed citizens should demand that these experts prove the science behind medicine by demonstrating successful outcomes of patients, non-toxic and affordable. If they can, these approaches should be rejected as unscientific. After all, the proof is in the cure.