deny the results rather than modify the scientific model. In contrast to the biomed-
ical perspective, Buckminster Fuller, an American architect and inventor, said,
“Eighty percent of reality cannot be perceived or detected through the five senses.” If
researchers limit themselves to the five senses, they will never come to understand
human energy fields, electromagnetic fields, thoughts as a form of energy, or the
healing power of prayer.
Conventional medicine also believes that procedures and substances must pass a
double-blind study to be proven effective. As a testing method, the double-blind
study examines a single procedure or substance in isolated, controlled conditions,
and measures its results against those of a procedure or substance known to be inac-
tive. This approach is based on the presumption that single factors cause and reverse
illness, and that these factors can be studied alone and out of context. Alternative
medicine, however, believes that no single factor causes anything, nor can a magic
substance single-handedly reverse illness. Multiple factors contribute to illness, and
multiple interventions work together to promote healing. The double-blind method
is incapable of reconciling this degree of complexity and variation.
Although major alternative medical systems may not have a great deal of quantita-
tive research, they are generally not experimental. They rely on well-developed clini-
cal observational skills and experience that is guided by their explanatory models.
Likewise, 70 to 85 percent of biomedical practices are guided by observation and
experience and have not been tested quantitatively. While new medicines must have
rigorous proof of efficacy and safety before clinical use, the use of tests, procedures,
and treatments are not similarly constrained. A tiny fraction of new devices under-
goes formal review by the Food and Drug Administration before marketing
approval. Western physicians, like alternative practitioners, use the same well-
developed clinical observational skills and experience, guided by their explanatory
biomedical model. Thus, the argument really becomes one of cultural bias rather
than scientific method.
Meticulous documentation for all claims that are made by the various therapies is
beyond the scope of this guide. The National Center for Complementary and
Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health (nccam.nih.gov) has been
mandated to facilitate the evaluation of alternative medical treatments, most typi-
cally conducted at universities and medical schools, and to provide the public with
this information. There may be a wait for new knowledge from quantum physics
and psychoneuroimmunology before alternative medicine can be understood in
terms of the biomedical model. Successful alternative therapies, however, should not
be withheld from the public while research is debated.14 ABSOLUTE BEGINNER’S GUIDE TOALTERNATIVE MEDICINE