|
by Asa Hershoff, N.D., D.C.
Creating a New Paradigm for Total Health
Healing Traditions
Healing and medicine are as old as humankind itself, with recorded evidence of already sophisticated systems of therapeutics in ancient China, Africa, India, Europe and the Americas. Many of these systems were not only appropriate for their culture, time or place but continue to be useful today. What is the standard or basis on which a system of medicine may be judged or considered valid? Better still, what are the essential elements that must be factored into any equation about systems of health and the science on which they are based? “Science,” we are told, “is a method of investigating nature and discovering reliable knowledge about it.” Yet what really defines a system of medicine is a set of values, ideologies, philosophy and theory about health, disease and cure and a body of methods and experiences that conforms to these ideas and confirms them. Which comes first—the ideas or the methods—and how they evolve together is complex but in any case this whole set of axioms is called, in science, a paradigm.
Whether stated or merely implied, the paradigms that govern a system of thought or a system of medicine are the source from which all else flows. We have different perceptions, make different observations, use different methods and expect rather different results. Then in the ultimate crucible of clinical practice, confronting and struggling with the complexities of human health and disease, a system of healing may adapt and modify its paradigmatic truth, possibly reaching a point of high refinement. However, the longevity of a system is not necessarily the most valid criteria for its value and effectiveness. Bloodletting held sway in orthodox medical treatment for 400 years—right up until this century—with scores of scientific tomes justifying its complete scientific validity. During the same period the most widespread medical drug was mercury. It certainly “worked” according to the theories of disease that were then current. It should also be pointed out that mainstream medicine has some serious “paradigmatic” problems.
The edifice of mainstream therapy is based on animal experimentation yet numerous researchers have pointed out that animal biochemistry differs radically from human physiology and there is little relevance to drug tests carried out on mice or rabbits. One interesting study even demonstrated that groups of mice treated with a certain drug in the morning did well; if treated in the afternoon a few died, but if treated at night, all died. Another problem is that these poor creatures have to have a disease “induced” in them in order to test a particular drug. This has only a remote relationship to how real disease develops over time and is due to multiple causes. A third significant problem is that modern double-blind studies on humans are all based on a theoretical existence of an “average” test subject. Though grouping people by disease, age, sex and other variables provides some commonalities, the actual differences between subjects is immense. This is clearly demonstrated by homeopathy, where any one of 2000 different medicines may be required to cure the same disease condition. Thus the indications of medical drugs as tested often have little relevance to the actual sick patient who confronts the doctor. This is part of the reason why over 12,000 approved drugs are taken off the market each year, when they are found to be ineffective or toxic in ways not previously recognized.
Homeopathic Paradigms
The paradigm of homeopathy is closely allied to Hippocratic medicine; symptoms of disease are recognized as positive reactions and biological attempts at self-healing. Thus the function of the physician is to assist these natural forces. In homeopathy this is done by using a substance which accentuates or emulates the body’s own healing process. This paradigm is in striking contrast to a mechanistic view that sees disease as a “something” which overtakes the body, a toxic force which must be removed by external means. In this view symptoms are to be suppressed as a token of disease eradication. Here chemistry reigns supreme, with various reactions occurring without a directing biological intelligence. But homeopathy also entails paradigms which appreciate the patterns of energy and information that pervade all living things. The theory and practice of homeopathy, including the use of ultra-minute doses, is completely explainable in terms of cutting-edge physics and planetary ecology (the works of Bohm, Sheldrake, Lovelock, etc.)
Unfortunately modern day biology has not yet integrated many concepts that are an everyday part of physics. The two sciences stand sadly apart so that many processes that go on in living things cannot be adequately explained—nor can homeopathy by chemistry alone. Intrinsic to both Hippocratic and homeopathic medicine is the paradigmatic concept of doing no harm, of curing with the least possible disruption to the person. Thus non-toxic medicines are used that do not produce toxic side effects. If this be taken as a measure of validity, homeopathy may be the most reasonable system of healing ever devised, while modern medicine is in trouble with upwards of 200,000 deaths caused annually due to prescription drugs, as published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in the early ’90s.
The Scientific Test
If homeopathy is valid, even though operating on a different paradigmatic basis, it should be able to be proved according to contemporary scientific methods. After all, a truth is a truth. However, there are significant problems with having such tests be meaningful from a homeopathic standpoint.
It is difficult to test a specific substance for a particular disease when homeopathy may choose from hundreds of medicines for that condition, according to individual needs. Additionally there is the very practical problem of severe underfunding and limited availability of research populations and facilities. Nevertheless a number of homeopathic research studies have been conducted, both on the theory of ultra low doses using cell cultures and in clinical situations. A well-known study published in the British Medical Journal in 1991 did a meta-analysis of 107 controlled clinical trials of homeopathy, with the result that 81 valid trials showed positive results. A recent study published in the Lancet (September 1997) analyzed 186 placebo-controlled trials of homeopathic medicine and came to the conclusion that homeopathy cannot be explained on the basis of the placebo effect.
So how much scientific validation is required before homeopathy can be considered a valid system of medicine? In the words of the researchers, homeopathy works but it is difficult to recommend it because its effectiveness cannot be explained by the limited views of current biology. Homeopathy is in the sad state that both electricity and magnetism were a hundred years ago. They could be demonstrated or observed but no technology existed to explain or verify them. Einstein had to wait 25 years before his theory of relativity could actually be verified by technology while Galileo’s theory of the earth rotating around the sun and Newton’s discovery of gravity had to wait centuries. Homeopathy is based on a technology that is still ahead of its time some 200 years after its inception. Until there exist sensing devices that can detect bioenergies within both people and remedies, the real basis of homeopathy will remain hidden. Once such devices are available the effectiveness of homeopathy (or modern medicine) in increasing physical and mental vitality can be put to a very scientific test. In this same regard there is another paradox. Six different medical studies, including one by the Office of Technology Assessment (a branch of Congress), conclude that only 10 to 20 percent of medical practice is based on solid science.
Strangely, while homeopathy is proving itself according to the paradigms of mainstream medicine, its own unique paradigm remains unexplored. Homeopathy has a highly systematic, rigorous method of investigating its medicine, using human subjects as the sounding board to understand the healing direction of various plant, mineral and animal substances. This method exposes startling and unique facts about the nature of healing substances and their relationship to human beings. If fully investigated, homeopathy could play an important part in reshaping the edifice of scientific thought in the coming century.
Paradigm and Prejudice
So why not embrace homeopathy and other alternative healing methods with open arms, with their track record of safety and apparent effectiveness? The medical establishment is notoriously slow to integrate new findings. The teachings of Galen, primitive by today’s knowledge, held sway for over a thousand years. Bloodletting or leaching was the therapy of choice for three centuries. It took over 50 years before the knowledge about the cause of scurvy was adopted by orthodoxy, while the discovery and introduction of antiseptic techniques were strongly opposed for over 30 years. For more than 150 years no American medical journal would publish any homeopathy research or clinical findings. Progress is being made; as of 1998 one article had been published. Today conventional medicine and legislators make the simple distinction that the valid practice of medicine is defined by what is taught in medical schools and what is done by the majority of practitioners. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy, allowing no innovation.
In reality what defines validity? Not simple majority opinion or bias or convention. From a narrow perspective, a pesticide will kill an insect feeding on an apple. It works. From a broader perspective this pesticide destroys both the environment and the apple eater. If one values life rather than expediency, it is no longer valid. Our question becomes not just one of efficiency but of paradigm, of value.
Dr. Asa Hershoff is a naturopathic physician and chiropractor who has been specializing in homeopathy for 25 years. He is the author of Homeopathy for Musculoskeletal Healing and Homeopathic Remedies (Avery 1999) and maintains a practice in both Los Angeles and New York.
|
