The skeptics and champions of allopathy – particularly the cranky and militantly myopic web sites like quackwatch.com – often derisively refer to alternative medical practices for which that they don’t have an existing framework of documented understanding as “pseudoscience”. Fake science. In short, bullshit.
This is largely because the body of evidence behind alternative healthcare doesn’t follow the same protocols and standards as the large, double-blinded, multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials do. Why? Primarily because that particular standard – the deliberately huge clinical trial upon which most government and institutional-level healthcare agencies and departments depend for “proof” – is, for all intents and purposes, completely dominated by major players in the allopathic medicine industry, primarily pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers.
“Why can’t alternative medicine follow ‘Evidence-Based’ standards?”
So why can’t alternative healthcare practitioners follow the same standard as Merck and Pfizer, or Johnson & Johnson and Bayer? Simple. They can’t afford to. Beyond the very fragmented industry of vitamins and supplements, there really is no central profit center to be found with most alternative healthcare disciplines. It’s much more a network of individuals working in their own small worlds, without a central cash cow around which to rally the kinds of giant and costly international studies that Fortune 100 companies can afford to pay for. (As someone with a decade of experience in the marketing departments of multi-billion dollar medical device companies, I also have a few personal insights into the corruption of the “Evidence-Based Medicine” standard that is so often trumpeted by the large institutions of allopathic medicine.)
Excellent small-scale science
Don’t be duped into the fallacy, however, that good science isn’t being done on alternative medicine. Excellent small-scale studies are being conducted all the time by dedicated researchers who are operating outside of the construct (and the funding) of allopathic medicine.
In the study below, allergens first identified by applied kinesiology – or muscle testing – were clinically validated by serum tests.
Was applied kinesiology 100% accurate? No. But a 90% success rate, clinically validated, is pretty good by anybody’s standard.
Int J Neurosci. 1998 Dec;96(3-4):237-44.
Author information: Schmitt WH Jr, Leisman G., Applied Neuroscience Laboratories, The College of Judea and Samaria, Ariel, Israel.
The pilot study attempted to determine whether subjective muscle testing employed by Applied Kinesiology practitioners, prospectively determine those individuals with specific hyperallergenic responses. Seventeen subjects were found positive on Applied Kinesiology (A.K.) muscle testing screening procedures indicating food hypersensitivity (allergy) reactions. Each subject showed muscle weakening (inhibition) reactions to oral provocative testing of one or two foods for a total of 21 positive food reactions. Tests for a hypersensitivity reaction of the serum were performed using both a radio-allergosorbent test (RAST) and immune complex test for IgE and IgG against all 21 of the foods that tested positive with A.K. muscle screening procedures. These serum tests confirmed 19 of the 21 food allergies (90.5%) suspected based on the applied kinesiology screening procedures. This pilot study offers a basis to examine further a means by which to predict the clinical utility of a given substance for a given patient, based on the patterns of neuromuscular response elicited from the patient, representing a conceptual expansion of the standard neurological examination process.
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]