anecdotal: based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation.
First, the main advise I give anyone seeking what to do about a health dilemma (or any situation) is seek the Lord. There is no "one size fits all" solution for each person. Ask the Lord to guide you on what to do and the DO that. There is no second-guessing God, as He knows what is best. So, if you still need man's sign off after God has told you what to do, then you have greater issues than your health. And that is really the crux of this issue.
Whether it is admitted or not, many people still have their hope, trust, and affections set in this world. If "they" say something is true, it is true. If "they" say something is bad, then it is bad. If "they" claim that this is all there is to know about a topic, then there is nothing else to learn. Who are they? Anyone considered to be an authority; teachers, doctors, business professionals, media, politicians, etc.
People believe that certain treatments are "proven effective" - not because of any particular knowledge in the area - but because they have been told such is effective. Likewise, they believe certain treatments are not effective - again, not due to any personal knowledge - but because they have been told it is not.
In order to discredit the use of other medicinal options, the medical community will often claim that anecdotal evidence is not only unreliable, but unscientific. Such could not be further from the truth.
Accounts of direct personal experience are anecdotal by the mere fact that they reflect personal observations. When you offer an eye witness account at the scene of a car accident, that is anecdotal evidence. Would such be ignored by the police as unreliable? Would it be disallowed in court for being anecdotal? Would we automatically reject such things as untrue or assume that the accident never really happened because it is reported by personal observation? No, of course not.
Even the medical community knows that there can be immense value in anecdotal evidence. Did you know that the U.S. Government did a study on the efficacy and safety of medical technologies about 30 years ago? At that time they found that only 10-20% of all medical procedures and off-label drug use was supported by clinical trials.
In other words, the overwhelming majority of ALL medical procedures and off-label drug use is primarily validated by anecdotal evidence such as case studies, research, etc. It is therefore completely hypocritical to claim that anecdotal evidence should be dismissed as having no scientific value when referencing "alternative" treatments, yet use the same standard to validate most of the medical approaches sanctioned by the industry.
The question then becomes, "Why is there only anecdotal evidence for many of these alternatives?" And that answer is simple: MONEY. The efficacy of natural treatments and herbs are not the primary targets of clinical studies because such studies are funded by the pharmaceutical companies.
I often hear people say things like, "If there really was a cure for cancer, we would know about it. These companies would advertise it because it would be the best money maker of all." Yet, these type of statements are made in ignorance. The entire consumer base of the pharmaceutical industry is a sick population! If people no longer need their drugs, then they have no business value.
In a recent episode of the reality TV show "Shark Tank", the inventor of the First Defense Nasal Screens tried to get investors to support his product. This nasal dust filter has been clinically proven to protect against allergies, viruses, pollutants, molds, etc. by up to 99%.
When it was suggested that he attempt to license the product to a pharmaceutical company, he explained that he already had. He had approached one of the biggest drug companies in the United States, and they told him that - should they have such a product - they would "SHELF IT". In other words, they would bury the product so that it never saw the light of day. They reportedly told him, "Why prevent for $1 what we can treat for $14."This attitude - that it is more profitable to treat sickness than prevent/cure it - has historically been the issue with Big Pharma's influence in the medical community. The healthcare industry is not some altruistic community of do-gooders trying to cure disease; it is a business! The more sicknesses are cured/prevented, the less money they make. The more sick you remain, the more you need them. Therefore, they systemically fight against or try to discredit anything which threatens those profits. Since Big Pharma pays for the clinical studies - and because natural growing herbs & plants cannot be patented - they have no incentive to fund R&D in those areas. In fact, doing so would essentially put them out of business.
It is not some conspiracy theory; it is simple, practical Business 101. You do what you can to grow the business and increase profit margins. It just so happens that the things which grow the pharmaceutical industry are continued and increasing sickness in the population. This is why the tentacles of Big Pharma extend well into the medical community (and beyond), from the curricula taught in medical schools, to the types of research funded, to paying doctor's incentives to prescribe their meds, increased direct marketing to the public, etc.
This is why, in 2008, FDA scientists wrote to Congress to expose a culture of corruption and illegality among its top officials regarding the approval of medical devices and drugs. These top FDA managers are reported to have "corrupted the scientific review of medical devices by ordering experts to change their opinions and conclusions in violation of the law." So-called "scientific" data was even altered or suppressed so as to gain approval for those products.
The FDA scientists' letter reportedly states, "America urgently needs change at FDA because FDA is fundamentally broken, failing to fulfill its mission, and because re-establishing a proper and effectively functioning FDA is vital to the health of the nation." These scientists felt that the FDA processes were so substantially compromised, that there needed to be significant reform in order to correct these issues...and such reform has not yet come.
If the fox is hired to guard the hen house, then we should not wonder why the hen's best interests are not the fox's main priority.
The issue with so-called "alternative" medicine is not that anecdotal evidence is somehow an unreliable medical standard (it is the basis for most medical approaches in use). The issue is that the pharmaceutical industry is a business and - like any for-profit business - they will do what is necessary to increase profits and suppress the competition. And the American people have allowed them to do this virtually unrestrained, even at the expense of the health of the American public.
Just because an "alternative" hasn't been signed off on by Big Pharma and its allies does not render it false. There are numerous effective cancer treatments which do not involve chemotherapy or radiation, but you will not find these promoted in the mainstream medical community. Something being unproven does not mean it has been disproven as effective.
For more info on this topic, please see "Evidence-Based Medicine is Not Exclusive of Alternative Medicine", Part 1 and Part 2.
