HEALING ALTERNATIVES by ZOLTAN P. RONA, M.D., M.Sc.

There are over 100 different types of alternative healing modalities 
currently offered by an army of practitioners in Ontario.  Some have a long 
history of acceptance (herbology, acupuncture, homeopathy, biofeedback, etc.)
while others are less understood (radionics, mind mirrors, crystal healing, 
etc). Assessing the pros and cons of each would be a gargantuan task suitable 
for a major study or book. Give me another 30 years or so and I'll get back to
you with it.  

The way I view all of these is rather simple and likely to change as time goes
by.  First of all, few, if any of these practices could be considered
alternatives to standard medical care for diagnosed diseases.  If anything, 
they might qualify under the heading of "Complementary Medicine".  This means
that once medical therapy has been instituted, some of these other modalities
could be additionally employed to enhance healing.  

My primary concern at that level is the safety of the modality in question.  
If the practice somehow interferes with ongoing medical treatment, it cannot 
be considered safe.  For example, the use of certain  herbs in the treatment 
of rectal bleeding as an alternative to appropriate medications can make the 
problem worse.  Another example would be the use of macrobiotic diets for a 
resectable (curable) breast cancer as "alternative" therapy.  There are no 
alternatives when it comes to disease.  There are also no guarantees but there
are standards of acceptable practice  enforced by laws designed to protect the 
public.   

Now, I know there will be many readers out there who will argue that all these
laws do is protect the medical monopoly.  But, I strongly feel that the line 
has to be drawn somewhere.  The powers that be (governments, medical
associations, etc.) are fairly open to complementary practices, an emphasis on
wellness and a well-informed public that takes more responsibility for health 
care.  Arguably, at this time, this is  based on cost saving concerns, but 
it's at least a step in the right direction. 

If an Aryuvedic doctor (see "Quantum Healing" by Dr. Deepak Chopra) can help 
an individual get to the root of why he or she has a diagnosable disease in 
the first place, the intuitive complementary therapy may be of great help in 
getting the medical treatment to work better.  No authority would prevent such
a thing and I doubt there is  any record of such occurring in the past five 
years in any event. 

What about the effectiveness of all these complementary modalities?  Here's 
where I have a problem.  If I am to make a judgment on radionics, for example,
how do I do this?  Like past life regression therapy, trance channeling, 
Christian fundamentalism, hypnosis, aura reading, reflexology and many 
others, the scientific evidence (clinical trials, double-blind studies, etc.)
just aren't there.  The same, however, can be said for about 80% of all 
currently available medical and surgical therapies including coronary 
bypass surgery.  To therefore condemn a modality on the basis of "it's not 
scientific" would eliminate at least 80% of the products in any drug or health
food store.  It would eliminate a far higher percentage of medical 
alternatives which may prove to have some indispensable value in years to 
come.  I think we have to be conscious of other ways of evaluating data and 
therapeutic modalities than the scientific.  I don't know yet  what these are 
with any degree of certainty so I keep studying.   

I like to keep an open mind.  I occasionally fill it with data and
expectations of benefit for my patients when a new or different modality
presents itself, but, more often than not, empty it as I gain further data 
and experience.  Who knows? Two hundred years from now, someone will read 
this article and think to himself, "Boy, how come this guy didn't realize that
no therapy really works and it's all in the way we use both sides of  our 
brain synchronously?"