Taxonomy And Research Methodology In Alternative Medicine

Savely L. Savva, MS

The classification of the entire field of Alternative Medicine based on a logical criterion is an important task that is yet to be solved.

I propose a classification of alternative medicine based on two criteria: 1) the presumed causative healing agent and 2) the associated methodology of the outcome evaluation. In development of the previously proposed classification (see MISAHA Newsletter #5, April-June, 1994, reproduced in The Choice, Vol.XX, # 2-3,1994:48-50 and Vol.XXI, # 1, 1995: 40) four basic fields are proposed in this classification (see chart in this newsletter) where the healing is presumed to be a result of:

1, the application of a material agent or a standardized therapeutic procedure (untested medicines, homeopathy, ozone, herbs, sound, aromas, chiropractic, chelation, etc.);

2, the work of the patient's mind through suggestion (psychotherapies, psychoneuroimmunology, hypnosis, placebo effect, self hypnosis, group therapies, etc.);

3, the intent of the healer - an individual possessing a special gift and a technique of influencing the physiology of a patient (prana healing, Qi-healing, polarity therapy, acupuncture, energy healing, laying-on-of hands, etc.);

4, the belief of a practitioner in the healing power of an agent, theory, procedure or god (belief of a physician in a particular medicine or a procedure, Speransky's Effect, Solvin's Effect, healing by prayer, etc.).

The methodology of clinical studies as well as the outcome evaluation and extrapolation of results are different and specific in each of these fields. The double-blind, placebo controlled randomized clinical trial is applicable only in the first field where all the other possible causative agents must be excluded. The major variables in field 2 are the suggestibility of a patient and the built-up credibility of a curative agent.

Clinical results of individual healers (field 3) cannot be extrapolated on the modality of a healing technique because the outcome depends on a special talent of an individual rather than a technique used. It is impossible to separate the effect of suggestion and psi-healing by measuring the clinical outcome alone and such separation is irrelevant for practical purposes. The identification of the psi effect can be achieved by comparing results in adults with those of small children and animals.

The methodology of studies in the fourth field seems to be extremely complex and has yet to be developed.

The above abstract was proposed for presentation at the First Alternative Medicine Symposium in San Diego, 18-22 January,. The essential difference of this new version as compared to the previous one is the identification of a separate field where the main presumed curative agent is the patient's mind (conscious and/or unconscious). The author hopes that the abstract along with the chart makes his concept perfectly clear. Continued on the next page…