It’s time for medical professionals to demonstrate their science-based medicine by demonstrating effective, non-toxic, and cost-effective patient outcomes.
It’s time to reexamine the method of science to take on the challenges of alternative therapies.
The U.S. government has belatedly verified a fact that thousands of Americans have experienced personally for a long time: acupuncture is effective. A 12-member panel comprised of “experts” informed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) the NIH’s sponsor that acupuncture is “clearly effective” for treating certain ailments, like tennis elbow, fibromyalgia, discomfort after dental procedures, nausea in pregnancy, as well as nausea and vomiting that are associated with chemotherapy.
The panel was less convinced that acupuncture should be used as the only treatment option for headaches asthma, headaches, addiction menstrual cramps, and more.
The NIH panel stated that “there are several cases” where acupuncture is effective. Because the treatment has fewer adverse effects and is more injurious than other treatment options, “it is time to take it seriously” and “expand its use into conventional buy sativex spray online.”
The developments are certainly welcome and all those in the field of alternative medicine ought to be delighted with this advancing step.
However, behind the NIH’s endorsement of and the qualified “legitimization” of acupuncture is something more fundamental that needs to be exposed assumption so deeply embedded within our culture that it can seem to be invisible to all except the keenest eyes.
The assumption is this: that the “experts” of medicine are competent and qualified to make opinions on the therapeutic and scientific advantages of alternative medical modalities.
The issue is based on the definition and meaning of the word “scientific.” The media is brimming with accusations from false medical experts who claim alternative medicine isn’t “scientific” and not “proven.” However, we rarely see the experts take a step away from their arguments to review the principles and beliefs of their revered scientific method to determine if they’re valid.
However, they’re not.
A medical historian Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D. who is the author of the acclaimed four-volume history of Western medicine dubbed Divided Legacy I was first alerted to a vital, yet not widely recognized distinct. The issue we need to ask is to determine if conventional medical practices are scientific. The doctor Dr. Coulter argues convincingly that it’s not.
In the past 2500 years, Western medicine has been divided into two different approaches to the human body, health, and healing, according to doctors. Coulter. The modern concept of traditional medicine (or allopath) was previously known as Rationalist treatment; alternative medicine as described in the time of Dr. Coulter’s past was known as Empirical medicine. The rationalist approach to medicine relies upon reason and the current theory, whereas Empirical medicine is based upon the facts that are observed and experienced. It is based on the results of research and on what works.
Dr. Coulter makes some startling observations that are based on this distinction. Conventional medicine is akin in both spirit and structure to the scientific method of inquiry according to him. The concepts of conventional medicine change constantly according to the most recent breakthrough. Yesterday the topic was germ theory. Today genetics is the focus; tomorrow we’ll never know.
With every change in medical thinking, the conventional medical profession has to eliminate its outdated conventional wisdom and adopt the new model until it changes. This is a qualitest syrup for sale that is based on abstract theories. The facts of the human body have to be altered to match these theories or be dismissed as unimportant.
Doctors who adhere to this stance believe in faith-based dogma and then impose it on their patients until it’s proven to be dangerous or untrue by the future generation. They become enthralled by abstract notions and neglect the real patients. This means that the diagnosis isn’t directly related to the treatment, the connection is more of an issue of speculation rather than scientific research. This method, as per Coulter. Coulter is “inherently imprecise, approximate, and unstable-it’s a dogma of authority, not science.” Even if a method doesn’t perform and isn’t used, it’s still in the literature since the theory claims its acceptable “science.”
However, those who practice Empirical alternatives, also known as alternative medicine, conduct their research: they examine the patients individually; identify the causes of each; take note of all symptoms and then observe the effects of the treatment.
Traditional homeopathy as well as Chinese medicine is two of the best examples of this method. Both are modalities that can be added because doctors in these fields as well as other alternative therapies are constantly seeking the latest information from their clinical experiences.
This is what makes it empirical. It’s founded on experiences, and then continuously evaluated and refined, but never reinvented or rejected in the course of a doctor’s daily sessions with actual patients. Because of this, homeopathic treatments don’t go out of fashion Acupuncture treatment methods do not become obsolete.