Is actually time for conventional medical experts to prove the science behind their remedies by demonstrating successful, nontoxic, and affordable patient effects.
It’s time to visit again the scientific method to deal with the complexity of different treatments. tabletki poronne
The U. S. government has belatedly confirmed a reality that millions of People in the usa have known personally for decades – acupuncture works. A 12-member panel of “experts” informed the State Institutes of Health (NIH), its sponsor, that acupuncture treatment is “clearly effective” for treating certain conditions, such as fibromyalgia, tennis arm, pain following dental surgery, nausea during pregnancy, and nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy.
The plank was less persuaded that acupuncture is appropriate as the only treatment for headaches, asthma, addiction, monthly cramps, yet others.
The NIH panel stated that, “there are a number of cases” where acupuncture works. Seeing that the treatment has fewer side effects and is less invasive than standard treatments, “it is time to take it seriously” and “expand its use into traditional medicinal practises. ”
These developments are naturally welcome, and the field of alternative treatments should, be pleased with this progressive step.
Although underlying the NIH’s certification and qualified “legitimization” of acupuncture is a much deeper issue that has to come to light- the presupposition so ingrained within our society as to be almost hidden to all but the most discerning eyes.
The presupposition is that these “experts” of drugs are entitled and qualified to pass judgment on the scientific and therapeutic value of alternative medicine techniques.
They may be not.
The subject hinges on the so this means and scope of the definition of “scientific. ” The media is packed with complaints by supposed medical professionals that alternative medicine is not “scientific” and not “proven. ” Yet we never hear these experts take a moment out from their vituperations to look at the tenets and presumptions with their cherished technological method to decide if they are valid.
Again, they can be not.
Medical historian Harris L. Coulter, Ph. G., author of the milestone four-volume history of European medicine called Divided Heritage, first alerted me to an important, though unrecognized, variation. Problem we should ask is whether traditional medical practises is scientific. Doctor. Coulter argues convincingly that it is not.
More than the last 2, five-hundred years, Western medicine has been divided by a powerful schism between two opposed techniques for looking at physiology, health, and curing, says Dr. Coulter. What we now call traditional medicinal practises (or allopathy) was once known as Rationalist medicine; nonconventional 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 medication is alien, both in spirit and structure, to the scientific technique of exploration, he says. Its principles 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 can charge the new one, until it gets changed again. This is medicine depending on abstract theory; the facts of the body must be contorted to adjust to these theories or dismissed as irrelevant.