TL;DR
-
Natural healthcare is often called “unscientific,” but it follows the same scientific method: observation, hypothesis, testing, refinement.
-
Anecdotal evidence is the starting point of science, not something to dismiss.
-
Conventional medicine often ignores clinical observations, in part because of pharmaceutical influence on journals and research.
-
Natural health focuses on restoring physiology (“infrastructure”) instead of just suppressing symptoms.
-
This approach may be more scientific because it asks broader, root-cause questions about disease.
Where Is the Science?
One common criticism of natural health care is that it is “unscientific.” That simply isn’t true. Much of what we do in natural health care is scientific—it just doesn’t always happen in a laboratory. In fact, you could argue we are often more scientific than conventional medicine, because we keep an open mind, study our observations, and let clinical results guide us.
What Science Really Means
When the medical profession critiques natural therapies, they use the word “science” as a weapon. But let’s look at the scientific method itself:
-
Make an observation
-
Pose a testable question
-
Form a hypothesis
-
Design and perform an experiment
-
Collect data and draw conclusions
Much of natural health care starts with observation. Practitioners share what they see, compare notes, and discover that many people are making the same clinical observations. This is what conventional medicine dismissively calls “anecdotal.”
But anecdotal evidence is not meaningless—it’s the starting point of science. Observations create the questions that eventually get tested in formal trials.
Why Conventional Medicine Isn’t Always Scientific
Ironically, medicine often ignores clinical observations that don’t fit the pharmaceutical model. Too often, financial interests dictate what gets published and what gets buried.
-
A study in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine (2008) found that journals with the most drug company ads had the fewest articles on nutritional supplements, and those articles were usually negative.
-
Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, admitted that his publication was too dependent on drug advertising to be impartial. He noted that two-thirds to three-quarters of clinical trials in major journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, NEJM) are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
With corporations spending millions on reprint rights and advertisements, it’s easy to see how “scientific truth” can be influenced by money.
Natural Health and the Scientific Method
Natural health care often looks at physiology differently. We don’t just ask, “Will Drug X reduce Symptom Y?” Instead, we ask:
-
Is Crohn’s disease due to incomplete digestion?
-
Is it driven by parasites, bacterial overgrowth, or food sensitivities?
-
Could nutrient deficiencies play a role?
We test these hypotheses through therapies that correct physiology. If patients improve, we know we’re on the right track. That is science.
For example:
-
Many asthmatics improve with magnesium.
-
Others respond to vitamin C or antioxidants.
-
Combining the two can lead to even better results.
With nutrients, therapies can be combined safely because they support infrastructure, not just suppress symptoms. That’s very different from drugs, which often work against each other and create side effects.
What We Really Do in Natural Health
We don’t treat disease directly—we improve infrastructure. Our focus is on identifying where physiology has broken down and restoring balance.
Conventional medicine often misses this, because its questions are too narrow: “Will Drug A treat Condition B?” The drug model is profitable, but it doesn’t always uncover root causes.
In reality:
-
One disease can have multiple causes.
-
One therapy may help some patients but not others.
-
Observations and small studies—dismissed as anecdotal—are often the first step toward real answers.
The Bottom Line
To deny all observations that don’t fit a drug-centered model is not scientific. To let corporations define what counts as “truth” in medicine is not scientific.
Natural health care follows the same scientific method: observe, hypothesize, test, refine. We simply ask better questions, remain open to multiple causes, and focus on improving physiology rather than just suppressing symptoms.
That’s real science.
FAQ: Science and Natural Healthcare
Q: Is natural healthcare unscientific?
A: No. Natural healthcare follows the same scientific method as conventional medicine: observation, hypothesis, testing, and refinement. Much of what we do begins with clinical observations, which are the foundation of science.
Q: Why does conventional medicine dismiss anecdotal evidence?
A: In medicine, “anecdotal” often means “not tested in a large trial.” But anecdotes are simply observations, and observations are the starting point of all scientific inquiry.
Q: Isn’t research in medical journals unbiased?
A: Not always. Studies show that journals with more pharmaceutical advertising publish fewer supportive articles on natural therapies. Financial pressures can influence editorial decisions and research priorities.
Q: How is natural healthcare different from conventional medicine?
A: Instead of focusing only on suppressing symptoms with drugs, natural healthcare asks broader questions about root causes. We aim to restore physiology and correct imbalances, which often leads to lasting improvements.
