Tuesday, December 15, 2009

A prior conception

According to some non-conventional medicine share a priori conception of the mechanisms of the human body and disease. For example,

* Energy medicine (acupuncture, Qigong, Shiatsu ...) assumes that it has a vital influx (prana in India, Ki in Japanese or Qi in Chinese) which flows harmoniously, the sickness is a disturbance this harmony should be re-balanced.

* Homeopathy is based on the principles:
No evil comes from a problem inherent to the person, the "field", and this field must be treated;

No treatment is done according to the principle of similarity: administering a substance known to cause a symptom that treat symptoms;

No longer a product is diluted and "energized" (vigorously shaken) is more active;

* Osteopathy assumes that the disorder stems from a blockage of anatomical structures between them, a malfunction "mechanical." It is based on four principles: the structure governs function, the model structure, the unity of body, and the artery is supreme.

Conventional medicine is based on the facts. It carries out a treatment if its effectiveness is proven (superiority over the natural healing and the placebo effect). The theory used to explain the effectiveness is subject to verification that there is an effective therapy. Thus, we used aspirin and penicillin without knowing the mechanism of therapeutic action of these substances. The explanation of their action would change with new discoveries, this would not alter their effectiveness.

In general, the fact that a theory, a prior conception, either true or false is independent of the result and can explain a fact by a false theory, and the fact that the theory is false does not being true. For example, in the Middle Ages, knew how to make iron and soap, however, the theory that explained the transformations of matter, alchemy, was generally false.


* If it is proved that the theory underlying a given medicine is wrong, this does not mean that the treatments associated with this medicine is ineffective;
* The fact that treatment is effective does not mean valid medical theory which justifies it.
* Evidence of effectiveness should be compared with natural healing and a placebo on a sufficient number of cases that we can have a statistically significant difference.