Alternative Medicine – What is Scientific and Proven?

It’s time for conventional medical experts to prove the science behind their medicine by demonstrating successful, nontoxic, and affordable patient outcomes.

It’s time to revisit the scientific method to deal with the complexities of alternative treatments.

The U.S. government has belatedly confirmed a fact that millions of Americans have known personally for decades – acupuncture works. A 12-member panel of “experts” informed the National Institutes of Health (NIH), its sponsor, that acupuncture is “clearly effective” for treating certain conditions, such as fibromyalgia, tennis elbow, pain following dental surgery, nausea during pregnancy, and nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy.

The panel was less persuaded that acupuncture is appropriate as the sole treatment for headaches, asthma, addiction, menstrual cramps, and others.

The NIH panel said that, “there are a number of cases” where acupuncture works. Since the treatment has fewer side effects and is less invasive than conventional treatments, “it is time to take it seriously” and “expand its use into conventional medicine.”

These developments are naturally welcome, and the field of alternative medicine should, be pleased with this progressive step.

But underlying the NIH’s endorsement and qualified “legitimization” of acupuncture is a deeper issue that must come to light- the presupposition so ingrained in our society as to be almost invisible to all but the most discerning eyes.

The presupposition is that these “experts” of medicine are entitled and qualified to pass judgment on the scientific and therapeutic merits of alternative medicine modalities.

They are not.

The matter hinges on the definition and scope of the term “scientific.” The news is full of complaints by supposed medical experts that alternative medicine is not “scientific” and not “proven.” Yet we never hear these experts take a moment out from their vituperations to examine the tenets and assumptions of their cherished scientific method to see if they are valid.

Again, they are not.

Medical historian Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D., author of the landmark four-volume history of Western medicine called Divided Legacy, first alerted me to a crucial, though unrecognized, distinction. The question we should ask is whether conventional medicine is scientific. Dr. Coulter argues convincingly that it is not.

Over the last 2,500 years, Western medicine has been divided by a powerful schism between two opposed ways of looking at physiology, health, and healing, says Dr. Coulter. What we now call conventional medicine (or allopathy) was once known as Rationalist medicine; alternative medicine, in Dr. Coulter’s history, was called Empirical medicine. Rationalist medicine is based on reason and prevailing theory, while Empirical medicine is based on observed facts and real life experience – on what works.

Dr. Coulter makes some startling observations based on this distinction. Conventional medicine is alien, both in spirit and structure, to the scientific method of investigation, he says. Its concepts continually change with the latest breakthrough. Yesterday, it was germ theory; today, it’s genetics; tomorrow, who knows?

With each changing fashion in medical thought, conventional medicine has to toss away its now outmoded orthodoxy and impose the new one, until it gets changed again. This is medicine based on abstract theory; the facts of the body must be contorted to conform to these theories or dismissed as irrelevant.

Doctors of this persuasion accept a dogma on faith and impose it on their patients, until it’s proved wrong or dangerous by the next generation. They get carried away by abstract ideas and forget the living patients. As a result, the diagnosis is not directly connected to the remedy; the link is more a matter of guesswork than science. This approach, says Dr. Coulter, is “inherently imprecise, approximate, and unstable-it’s a dogma of authority, not science.” Even if an approach hardly works at all, it’s kept on the books because the theory says it’s good “science.”

On the other hand, practitioners of Empirical, or alternative medicine, do their homework: they study the individual patients; determine all the contributing causes; note all the symptoms; and observe the results of treatment.

Homeopathy and Chinese medicine are prime examples of this approach. Both modalities may be added to because physicians in these fields and other alternative practices constantly seek new information based on their clinical experience.

This is the meaning of empirical: it’s based on experience, then continually tested and refined – but not reinvented or discarded – through the doctor’s daily practice with actual patients. For this reason, homeopathic remedies don’t become outmoded; acupuncture treatment strategies don’t become irrelevant.

Alternative medicine is proven every day in the clinical experience of physicians and patients. It was proven ten years ago and will remain proven ten years from now. According to Dr. Coulter, alternative medicine is more scientific in the truest sense than Western, so-called scientific medicine.

Sadly, what we see far too often in conventional medicine is a drug or procedure “proven” as effective and accepted by the FDA and other authoritative bodies only to be revoked a few years later when it’s been proven to be toxic, malfunctioning, or deadly.

The conceit of conventional medicine and its “science” is that substances and procedures must pass the double-blind study to be proven effective. But is the double-blind method the most appropriate way to be scientific about alternative medicine? It is not.

The guidelines and boundaries of science must be revised to encompass the clinical subtlety and complexity revealed by alternative medicine. As a testing method, the double-blind study examines a single substance or procedure in isolated, controlled conditions and measures results against an inactive or empty procedure or substance (called a placebo) to be sure that no subjective factors get in the way. The approach is based on the assumption that single factors cause and reverse illness, and that these can be studied alone, out of context and in isolation.

The double-blind study, although taken without critical examination to be the gold standard of modern science, is actually misleading, even useless, when it is used to study alternative medicine. We know that no single factor causes anything nor is there a “magic bullet” capable of single-handedly reversing conditions. Multiple factors contribute to the emergence of an illness and multiple modalities must work together to produce healing.

Equally important is the understanding that this multiplicity of causes and cures takes place in individual patients, no two of whom are alike in psychology, family medical history, and biochemistry. Two men, both of whom are 35 and have similar flu symptoms, do not necessarily and automatically have the same health condition, nor should they receive the same treatment. They might, but you can’t count on it.

The double-blind method is incapable of accommodating this degree of medical complexity and variation, yet these are physiological facts of life. Any approach claiming to be scientific which has to exclude this much empirical, real-life data from its study is clearly not true science.

In a profound sense, the double-blind method cannot prove alternative medicine is effective because it is not scientific enough. It is not broad and subtle and complex enough to encompass the clinical realities of alternative medicine.

If you depend on the double-blind study to validate alternative medicine, you will end up doubly blind about the reality of medicine.

Listen carefully the next time you hear medical “experts” whining that a substance or method has not been “scientifically” evaluated in a double-blind study and is therefore not yet “proven” effective. They’re just trying to mislead and intimidate you. Ask them how much “scientific” proof underlies using chemotherapy and radiation for cancer or angioplasty for heart disease. The fact is, it’s very little.

Try turning the situation around. Demand of the experts that they scientifically prove the efficacy of some of their cash cows, such as chemotherapy and radiation for cancer, angioplasty and bypass for heart disease, or hysterectomies for uterine problems. The efficacy hasn’t been proven because it can’t be proven.

There is no need whatsoever for practitioners and consumers of alternative medicine to wait like supplicants with hat in hand for the scientific “experts” of conventional medicine to dole out a few condescending scraps of official approval for alternative approaches.

Rather, discerning citizens should be demanding of these experts that they prove the science behind their medicine by demonstrating successful, nontoxic, and affordable patient outcomes. If they can’t, these approaches should be rejected for being unscientific. After all, the proof is in the cure.

Burton Goldberg is the author of 18 books on the subject of Alternative Medicine, i

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off

Holistic Medicine As Compared With Other Medical Practices

Holistic medicine is health care that comprises all the aspects of one’ s personality to obtain the optimum state of wellness. It encompasses the process of looking into the wholeness of the person including nutritional, physical, environmental, spiritual, lifestyle and social values. Holistic medicine includes virtually all treatments and diagnosis known to achieve balance in personality. It upholds the responsibility of educating one’s self to attain the ideal over-all health and well being.

Holistic medicine and Alternative Medicine

Alternative medicine is commonly associated with holistic medicine. By definition, alternative medicine is the medical techniques that are usually not accepted or practiced by conventional medical practitioners. Most alternative medicines are founded to have rooted on unscientific, untested and untraditional principles. Often, these forms of medicine are closely associated with metaphysical components and anti-scientific stands.

Many of these techniques don’t normally have pharmaceutical values like the acupuncture, herbalism, Reiki, homeopathy and the likes. Yet the alternative medicine may also be used in experimental non-drug and drug techniques that are not yet accepted in the medical circles. The future of alternative medicine holds on the potentiality of transforming the “alternative medicine” into conventional medicine since it is now becoming widely appreciated and practiced by medical doctors. In fact, complementary medicine is the term used for alternative medicine practiced in combination with conventional medicine.

Due to these changes in view of the alternative medicine, holistic medicine has become a more preferable option among those who are quite doubtful of the alternative medicine.

Alternative medicine may appeal to metaphysical beliefs and so does the holistic medicine but on milder and more scientifically based approach. Yet the knowledge applied in holistic medicine still cannot hide the fact that it tends to cling to non-scientific knowledge.

Simply put holistic medicine claims to cure and treat the whole person. Holistic medicine stresses out the unification of the mind and the physical body. Holistic medicine practitioners give credence to the belief the man is not a pure physical body with systems and parts that encompass it. Man is also a spiritual being that requires spiritual healing. Holistic medicine concerns itself to the belief of the connection between the spirit and emotions and mind.

The gap between holistic medicine and alternative medicine is closed by the common practice of not using drug treatments and surgeries. They usually employ meditation, herbs, prayers, vitamins and minerals, as well as exotic diets in treating certain ailments.

Holistic Medicine and Conventional Medicine

Allopathy or conventional medicine defines individual health as the non-occurrence of diseases, which appeals to be a negative approach in defining the condition. Holistic medicine on the other hand concerns itself on a person’s absolute state of physical, social, mental and spiritual well-being.

As based on the definition given (that is commonly used among medical practitioners), orthodox medicine remains to deal with one’s susceptibility to diseases instead of the wellness as opposed by holistic medicine. Based on common observations, conventional medicine typically doesn’t apply to healthy individuals. While holistic medicine focuses on the quality of living practiced by people. Sick people normally don’t seek medical attention not until the symptoms of the disease/s are obvious. Thus, there is too little preventive treatment against sickness.

There are great differences between holistic medicine and the conventional type both in the diagnosis and treatments. Most of which are scientifically based. In oppose to this stand, diagnosis in holistic treatment are conceived through the manifestations of body imbalance. These are determined through certain procedures distinctive only to holistic medicine and other related medicinal practices.

People who have already undergone any of these procedures claim that is not bad trying on or all of these practices. Yet individual preferences still have the hand on what will be accepted as the ideal procedure.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off