Conventional medicine, homeopathy, & science: Dr. Steven Coward, N.D. breaks down the logic of a longstanding assumption

New Life Journal, Oct-Nov, 2002 by Steven Coward

As a practitioner of homeopathy, I am frequently asked if my practice is "scientific." Indeed I am often told, or my patients are told, that what I do is altogether "unscientific." The implication, of course, is that the dominant school--pharmaceutical medicine--is scientific, and therefore reigns supreme over my system. A review of the facts tells me this isn't true.

Science

My Webster's Dictionary defines science as "knowledge as of facts, phenomena, laws, and proximate causes, gained and verified by exact observation, organized experiment, and correct thinking." The science of physics is a good example. Its law of gravity fits the Webster's definition--we actually understand the law that regulates the pull of bodies on one another in space.

Conventional Medicine

What does such knowledge allow us to do? For one thing, it allows us to accurately predict the effect of an event that has never been observed before. For example, we can drop a block of wood from 44 feet in the air, and accurately predict the length of time it will take to reach the ground, even though nobody before has ever observed exactly this event. Can modern medicine lay claim to this same power of prediction? The fact that the male pattern baldness drug Propecia [per thousand] started out as a prostate drug tells us, No. In fact, a surprising number of drags are discovered "serendipitously." ,Smother characteristic of a true science is the ability to build on current knowledge without toppling it. Einstein's Theory of Relativity was a profound addition to Newtonian physics (which gave us the law of gravity), but not a disproof of it. That's because the facts, phenomena, laws and proximate causes that Newton discovered don't change. Physics is a science. Again, modern medicine fails this test of a science. Treatments considered state-of-the-art one day are monstrous accidents the next. From Thalidomide to lobotomy to today's reconsideration of hormone replacement therapy, we repeatedly discard the previous day's genius. Which of our current state-of-the-art therapies are destined to be tomorrow's bad memories? How can a fact, phenomena, law, or proximate cause be right one day and wrong the next? It can't. But assumptions can be wrong. So is conventional medicine science or speculation? But conventional medicines are "proven effective" you say. We have all these clinical trials that demonstrate their effectiveness. Isn't that scientific? While clinical trials do follow the scientific method in their process, the question remains, "what, exactly, has been proven?" A medical study can show that a drug has an effect, but in the absence of the principles which define science, the results of the study are just data. They have no context and no meaning. It requires a leap of faith to conclude that the effect translates into better health. Take aspirin for example. We can demonstrate that aspirin reduces the pain of a headache. That is not proof that it benefits our health. If I get a headache every day, and take aspirin every day, am I healthier for the experience? Given side effects like intestinal bleeding, and damage to the kidneys and inner ears, am. I even as healthy? There is a TV commercial currently airing which brings this point into sharp focus. The drug is Lipitor[R], and the commercial shows a physically-fit, middle-aged man who does push ups, situps, and swims laps every day, but his cholesterol is 258. "Lipitor[R] For Less Cholesterol," is how the commercial ends. But what's that in fine print? "Lipitor has not been shown to prevent heart disease or heart attacks." That's right. This drug has been fed to 18 million people without any evidence that it will improve the length or quality of their lives!

Homeopathy

So what's the point of all this? Am I just griping because I don't own a share of the second-largest legal industry in the world? No, actually. The purpose of my professional life is to help people truly recover their health, and to let as many people as possible know that there is at least one option available that really is "scientific." Homeopathy is a 200 year-old medical system based on the only verified law of cure of which I am aware: that like-cures-like. Stated simply, tiffs means that any medicine will create the same symptoms in the healthy as it will cure in the sick. The medicinal use of a homeopathic remedy is determined by giving it in repeated doses to a group of healthy volunteers and recording any signs or symptoms of disease they develop. Those specific signs and symptoms, when encountered in a sick person, will be cured with that remedy. Every homeopathic remedy is prescribed based on this law. Every case of disease is treated based on this law.

Homeopathy has been in practice for 200 years. It enjoys great acceptance in many countries in Europe, Asia, and South America, and its use is growing once again in the United States. As with gravity, we can predict the medicinal action of a homeopathic remedy ahead of time. Samuel Hahnemann, physician and father of homeopathy, demonstrated this in his historic guidance of physicians treating an epidemic of Asiatic Cholera in Europe in the early 1800s. Dr. Hahnemann had never before treated this disease himself, nor had the remedies he recommended ever been used to treat it. The success was nevertheless astounding, as physicians both homeopathic and conventional attested, demonstrating the truth of the law he had discovered. As with physics, we can build on current homeopathic knowledge without rendering it obsolete. The addition of new remedies to our pharmacy never replaces old ones. We use the same remedies based on the same indications as Dr. Hahnemann did 200 years ago, and our success continues to delight our patients. The addition of new knowledge expands our ability to treat the sick. Unlike modern clinical studies, we can clearly identity the usefulness of homeopathic remedies. They permanently restore health, arresting and reversing degenerative processes that cause patients discomfort and disability. That's why they have remained in continuous use for so long. How many times has pharmaceutical medicine reconsidered the usefulness of its therapies over the same 200 years? Which is science and which is not is clear to me, and I hope I've provided food for thought based on facts and sound logic. The decision to use conventional medicine or an alternative such as homeopathy is difficult given our cultural bias toward the former. Consider the facts and not the bias.