Foundations of Naturopathic Medicine Project
Codifying our knowledge. It’s time
THE HEALING POWER OF NATURE
NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE’S PLACE IN THE HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE
Leanna J. Standish, ND, PhD, Chris Grontkowski, PhD, and Christa Louise, ND
Version 4.0 May 1, 2006
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to articulate and define, in as clear and succinct a manner as possible, the relationship
between modern naturopathic medicine and allopathic medicine and the connections that both sets of medical
principles have to the philosophy of science.
Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of science is a relatively recent field of specialization in philosophy, beginning roughly with Ernst
Mach, Rudolph Carnap, and Karl Popper in the early 20th century, followed by Alfred North Whitehead, and
coming to a flourishing development in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s with the contributions of Arthur Eddington
and Werner Heisenberg, among others. The field can best be described as the effort to provide an epistemological
basis for our understanding of nature through the natural sciences. Philosophers of science seek to answer the
question “How do we know what we know about scientific matters or nature?” Traditionally, its methods have been
logical, mathematical, and linguistic---all in the effort to make an ultimately metaphysical statement about what
constitutes reality.
The primary foci of inquiry have had to do with subject-object, mind-matter, and essence-appearance distinctions.
The predominant values, somewhat simplistically stated, favor object over subject, matter over mind, and essential
qualities over appearances. Hence they are almost reliably Cartesian, i.e., dualistic, in their approach. These are the
values that constitute what in philosophy of science is called “the received view” (Heelan, 2001). That view derives
from the Vienna Circle and reflects their positivistic empiricism, i.e., that scientific information can only be derived
from physically measurable experiments. The approach is analytic/empirical and the goal is to give the most
objective description of entities and events in nature.
More recently, methods in philosophy of science can also be characterized as phenomenological. This is due
primarily to the influence of Husserl, Heidegger, and Merleau-Ponty, who took seriously the aspects of phenomena
(that which appears to observers as opposed to that which is [the thing in itself]) and developed a new, non-dualistic
analysis that includes history, context, culture, and development. Add to this philosophical background the
scientific theories of Einstein and Heisenberg and dualism faces enormously serious, fundamentally scientific
challenges. Briefly, these are Einstein’s description of the conversion of matter into energy and vice versa, and
Heisenberg’s introduction of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle. This challenges the simple role of
the observer, since in attempting to ascertain the position of a subatomic particle, for example, the observer will
enter the experiment and thus not be able to describe both position and momentum simultaneously.
The history of Western medicine has followed very closely the development of the natural sciences: physics,
chemistry, and biology. Intellectual inquiry, research programs, and clinical practices reflect those traditional
values. The conventional 20th century “allopathic” explanatory strategy has been described as adhering to the
following principles: objectivism, dualism, reductionism, positivism, determinism, and mechanism (Louise 2000).
All of these principles have their basis in scientific materialism. This is a philosophical and scientific position that
postulates and defends the primacy of material objects. Material objects are not only the fundamental entities of
nature but also the primary epistemological categories. Human knowledge, if it to be considered knowledge at all
and not mere hypothesis or opinion, is thus based on its correspondence to material objects. Ultimately, mind (and
soul or spirit as analogous to mind) can be reduced to certain actions and interactions of physical objects. For
example, consciousness can best be explained in neurological terms.
A very new field in philosophy of science is phenomenology of medicine. Both Husserl and Heidegger criticized
modern science for the way in which it values explanatory theories, i.e. “ideas” or “mental objects” over life-world
processes. The life-world concept can be understood, for example, by studying the manner in which the human
mind is embodied. There are several ways to approach this: the mind is embodied exclusively in the brain; possibly
also in muscular or endocrine tissues; most broadly, the embodiment “extends also into the environment that
sustains life and provides the meaningful physical space in which we live our conscious lives in society” (Heelan,
© International Editors Retreat | Stevenson, Washington | April 1-5, 2007 – Chapter Draft
1
p. 51). Contemporary phenomenology of medicine postulates the concept of ‘Lifeworld’ as at least as valuable as
conventional medicine and more inclusive of other areas of human experience. Each human subject “inherits . . .
language, culture, community, a set of cares . . .that give meaning, structure, and purpose to the Lifeworld one
shares with one or more communities” (Heelan p. 50) In this context the practice of medicine can be scientific in
the traditional sense yet it can also embrace the broader aspects of human experience such as those exemplified in
the naturopathic concept of holism.
Phenomenology and metaphysics
Although the term “phenomenon” has the original meaning in ancient Greek that is best translated as “appearance,”
it does not necessarily follow that appearance is to be contrasted always with reality or essence. The effort of many
of the early phenomenologists (Husserl, Heidegger, Gadamer, Merleau-Ponty) was not to advance such a dualism
but to use the term “phenomenon” as a way of describing entities in a context. Another way of saying this is that
instead of maintaining an ontological separation between essence and appearance, phenomenology emphasizes that
our understanding of the natural world arises from the multiple ways in which that world appears. Heidegger
stresses that phenomenology is an orientation toward what is given (die Sache selbst) in the life-world
(Lebenswelt). As Patrick Heelan (2001) indicates in “The Lifeworld and Scientific Interpretation,” Husserl and
Heidegger “criticized the ethos of modern science for a certain cultural bias it tends to encourage. This bias is in the
way it privileges explanatory theories (‘ideas’ or ‘mental objects’) over life-world processes (‘phenomena’) with
the consequence that the cultural hegemony of (what Aristotle called) ‘calculative thinking’ is promoted over the
more foundational ‘meditative thinking.’ Calculative thinking is ordained toward management and control of things
and people through rigid frameworks of organized thought. Meditative thinking has as its basic concern cultural
meaning and meaning-change. . .”
Heelan (2001) is careful to add that great and undeniable benefits follow from the calculative thinking of scientific
research and investigation. These benefits include theoretical and technical advances in the sciences, including
medicine. Thus, the phenomenological analysis of the life-world is not developed solely in opposition to traditional
science but is an effort to enhance and enlarge it. An example of this is the recognition that the body is not merely a
material object consisting of separate systems. It is also a locus of “dynamic processes and physical exchanges that
mutually transform the functional ontology of the bodily parts, as well as the engagement of the whole body in the
Lifeworld through conscious and unconscious functional exchanges.” (Heelan 2001, p. 49) In another passage
Heelan writes, “The Lifeworld is an attempt to show, to point out, the historical river of individual human
existence. What is thus revealed is the ontological dimension of human experience, prior to (because a grounding
condition of) the epistemological” (p.50).
Briefly then, the relationship between phenomenology and metaphysics can perhaps best be described as one that
allows the phenomenological perspective to enrich traditional metaphysics by looking at that-which-is in
perceptual, cultural, and historical diversity. In this way it is not unlike the relationship between traditional Western
medicine and naturopathic medicine. Because of its phenomenological approach, for many naturopathic physicians,
the clinical approach and the epistemological approach are one in the same.
The basic tenets of scientific materialism
Modern naturopathic medicine, while phenomenologically oriented, operates within a culture that espouses
materialism as its basic ontology. The conventional modern western view of reality has been called alternately
material realism, materialism, and scientific materialism. These terms are often used synonymously and
interchangeably. Materialism, as a philosophy and cosmology, is a monistic philosophy. Modern materialism posits
that there is only one thing in the universe - matter, and, thus, the term ‘monism’ applies. To be complete, we could
safely say that the modern Western medical scientific view is based on monistic materialism. So that we can be
clear about what we mean by monistic materialism and its application in scientific materialism, we will list here the
basic tenets.
1. The universe is made of atoms which are matter. Matter is primary.
2. The movement of atoms and the subatomic particles of which they are comprised generates energy.
Matter can be interconverted to energy, but matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
3. Time is irreversible and linear.
4. The universe has no purpose. It merely exists.
5. Biological life arose out of an initial accident: the random genesis of self-replicating proteins (see for
example Richard Dawkins ‘The Selfish Gene’).
6. The human being is a complex multi-cellular organism; nothing more, nothing less.
2
7. Contingencies of survival (phylogenetic development through natural selection) and the contingencies of
reinforcement (ontological development through classical and operant conditioning learning) are the two
principles needed to account for human thought, action, and emotion. See for example, BF Skinner’s
‘About Behaviorism’ (1976) which elegantly argues that the human being is the joint effect of the
contingencies of survival (phylogeny) and the contingencies of reinforcement (ontogeny). To suggest
other causality violates Ockham’s razor.
8. Thought is private verbal behavior where the speaker (Broca’s area 41 of motor cortex) and the listener
(Wernicke’s area in the auditory cortex) are in the same brain.
9. Since matter, including biological matter, is primary, human consciousness is an emergent property of
matter. Consciousness is an emergent epiphenomenon of brain structure and physiology. Therefore,
consciousness can have no direct effect on the environment outside of the skin of the organism other than
through the effects of verbal behavior (i.e. language).
10. The organism stops at the skin.
11. Upward causation is the main causal analysis in scientific materialism and therefore reductionism is an
appropriate method for understanding ‘underlying mechanisms’ of life. Upward causation is the notion
that atoms give rise to molecules which give rise to biochemicals whose interaction produces cell
physiology which gives rise to organ and inter-organ system physiology which gives rise to a complex
nervous system and its associated brain neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, and neurophysiology which
gives rise to human language which produces human culture and cultural evolution throughout linear
human history.
12. The concepts of ‘soul’, ‘spirit’, and ‘god’ are social linguistic constructions that are meaningless because
they refer to nothing verifiable by any sense organ. Within scientific materialism the concept of ‘vitalism’
is useless, misleading and meaningless.
In summary, material realism and scientific materialism asserts five principles (Goswami 1993):
 Strong objectivity – there is an objective real world that can be known partially through the human senses
 Causal determinism – everything is caused by something else
 Locality – all interactions are mediated by signals through space-time
 Material monism – the universe consists of matter (and its by product energy) – and nothing else
 Epiphenomenalism – human consciousness is an epiphenomenon of brain activity
The success of scientific materialism
Twentieth century western medicine fully embraced scientific materialism. This orientation was codified by the
Flexner Report widely disseminated in the 1960s. Twentieth century biomedicine proceeded forward with
astonishing success by the application of material realism and utilizing a particular philosophy and scientific
method called reductionism. The randomized clinical trial, a relatively new idea in science, was first suggested in
the 1930s by the British statistician, Austin Bradford Hill. The revolutionary invention and widespread application
of the randomized controlled clinical trial, the gold standard of evidence-based mainstream medicine, emerged
from the monistic materialistic model of reality. Single physical variables such as pharmaceutical drug molecules
can be measured, varied and their effect on a dependent variable can be measured and compared to an inert
substance, the placebo. While the RCT has been a useful method for comparing one pharmaceutical to another it
has not been without its critics. Harris Coulter, PhD, a well known advocate for medical homeopathy, published a
thoughtful critique of the premises and assumptions inherent in controlled clinical trial in 1991 (Coulter 1991).
Nevertheless, the evolution of science has led to the concept of the RCT for evaluating safety and efficacy of
medicines and the successes of scientific materialism in medicine and health have been considerable. Some, but not
all, naturopathic physicians believe that naturopathic medical research does not require a different model. Based on
the exogenous germ theory of disease, drug treatment for many infectious diseases and widespread public health
sanitation has led to a huge epidemiological transition in morbidity and mortality in the industrialized world.
Median age of death in 1900 in the US was 47. Now, in just 100 years, median age of death is 77. It is reductionism
and the application of statistical reasoning that led to the discovery that dirty water carries disease, that crop
rotation produces better farm output, that penicillin from mold is an effective antibiotic drug, that estrogen therapy
may be harmful to many women, and to the development of effective drugs against AIDS, to mention just a few
examples of the success of scientific materialism and reductionism.
Some naturopathic physicians accurately point out that drug treatment was not the primary cause of the decline of
infectious disease. The bulk of the decline really began with the sanitation practices. We may have given more
credit to antibiotics that is their due. Although the mean age of death in higher in 2000 compared to 1900, the
3
statistic is misleading because of all the infant deaths that occurred in the early part of the 20 th century. In other
words, in 1900, if you reached the age of 40 you had a good chance of reaching the age of 65, but the mean was
lower when the high infant mortality was added in. Some argue that while mortality and morbidity from infectious
disease is lower now than 100 years ago, chronic disease mortality and morbidity has risen.
Mind-Body theories
Contemplation and study of the relationship of mind to body is customarily referred to in the history of philosophy
as “the mind-body problem.” How the mind and the body relate is problematic in several ways: 1) How does an
immaterial entity connect with and/or influence a material entity? 2) Which of the two entities has ontological and
epistemological priority? 3) On what basis do we as human beings make judgments about these relationships?
The first philosopher in the Western tradition to raise these issues in a sustained manner was Plato. He presents the
position that mind (or soul or spirit) exist both prior to and after its sojourn in the body. St. Augustine in the
theological tradition and Descartes in the scientific tradition have very strong Platonic roots. The questions raised
by philosopher-scientists had to do with how human beings make the transition from perception or observation to
knowledge, how reliable that transition is, and what kinds of scientific truths can be postulated upon it. There were
a number of monistic theories including materialism (all mental events are reducible to physical entities or states),
idealism (all so-called material objects are actually ideas, or reflections of a higher order of reality), and doubleaspect theories such as that of Spinoza which maintains that mind and body are simply two ways of looking at the
whole just as are God and nature. There were also strong dualistic theories such as Descartes’ distinction between
extended beings (bodies) and non-extended beings (minds). Descartes’ position is that we can only come to know
material objects by first knowing the nature of our minds. Another, much less influential, dualistic theory is that of
pre-established harmony. This is Leibniz’ position that all things, mental and material, are designed by God to be
accurate reflections of each other. Twentieth century logical positivists such as Bertrand Russell and John Searle
contributed much to the philosophy of science. They argued that we can only know what we can operationalize
through language. The mind-body problem disappears for logical positivists. It is a linguistically meaningless
question and should not, they believe, distract from the great empirical enterprise of modern science.
For contemporary philosophy and science the most critical questions have to do with the relationship between
consciousness and neurophysiology. It has often been argued that the mind is the result of the organization and
activity of the brain. If actions, emotions, and thoughts of human beings were the result of brain activity then it
follows that the human mind is also a complex biological machine. This premise underlies modern biological and
computational neuroscience as well as artificial intelligence science and engineering. Other questions have to do
with the mutual interactions between mind and body, with the possibility of communication between minds (as in
mental telepathy, or ESP), and with the influence of mental states on physical disease processes and physical wellbeing, known by the researchers in this field as ‘distant mental influence on living systems (DMILS).
Causality
The concept of cause has traditionally been defined in terms of an object, an event which produces an effect. The
effect can then be explained as a result of the cause. Although there was some effort among the Pre-Socratics and in
Plato to address causal aspects, Aristotle was the first to give a systematic approach to the topic. He distinguished
four kinds of causes: material, formal, efficient, and final. The material cause of an object is its physical matter; the
formal cause is its concept or description; the efficient cause is that which brought it about; the final cause is the
purpose of the object’s existence. For example, if we consider an object such as a portrait: the material cause would
be paint on canvas; the formal cause would be the likeness of the person so represented; the efficient cause would
be the artist; and the final cause would be to give aesthetic pleasure. Aristotle believed that only by addressing all
four causes could any object be properly described.
Modern science developed in many ways in opposition to Aristotle. Hence, the only aspect of causality that was
valuable was that of efficient cause, the producer of the effect. The activities of empirical science concentrated on
working backwards from the observed effect to the influence of the cause. There was also a very close connection
between the concept of cause and that of the laws of nature. The cause was a necessary and/or sufficient condition
for the existence of the effect. The major usage of the concept of causality in the history of science is empirical. A
scientist searches for the cause of observed phenomena, e.g., for a certain bacterium or inflammation that results in
symptoms of disease.
The modern concept of causality has not changed much since the publication of David Hume’s “An Enquiry
Concerning Human Understanding” in 1748. Hume’s view of causality became a central aspect of the 18th and 19th
century British empiricism, and the central doctrine of 20th century science, including biology and medicine. Hume
4
utilized thought experiments with billiard balls to conclude that causality requires three conditions: contiguity in
space, contiguity in time, and correlation. As we will see, 20th century evidence of non-local’ causality has shaken
the foundations of scientific materialism because it violates Humes’ assertion that causality requires objects to
touch each other, at the same moment in time. Evidence that is anomalous to scientific materialistic view of
reality’s very nature comes not only from the micro world of subatomic particles, but also from the macro-world of
neuroscience and medicine.
Is vitalism a dualistic and/or useful concept?
Vitalism as originally conceived in 19th century naturopathic medicine was a deeply dualistic concept.
Interestingly, naturopathic medicine, while borrowing evidence from 20th century biomedical science for many of
its therapies, did not follow the mainstream medical culture and did not embrace scientific materialism as its core
philosophy. Rather this medical sub-culture continued to adhere to an idealistic and vitalistic philosophy. German
homeopathy, a deeply vitalistic medical doctrine, influenced naturopathic medicine and it is perhaps homeopathy
that has been most responsible for keeping vitalism alive in naturopathic medicine as its core philosophy.
Modern western medicine elsewhere had moved away from dualism, embracing instead a monistic materialistic
perspective; that the brain and the mind are one; the brain causes the mind and not vice versa; that the concept of
soul is meaningless. Naturopathic doctors, unlike their conventionally trained medical (‘MD’) colleagues,
continued to use language that included’ mind’, ‘body’, and ‘spirit’, sometimes a kind of triad, other times a kind of
dualism. When naturopathic medicine had its resurgence in the last 25 years of the 20th century detractors criticized
the medicine and its vitalistic philosophy as a quaint anachronism and thus undeserving of serious consideration.
However, now in the beginning of the 21st century naturopathic medicine is in the forefront of the resurgence of
monistic idealism in medical science.
Vitalism is a useful concept only if scientific materialism is an incomplete or, perhaps, even incorrect philosophy.
We will argue that within the ‘new science’ and the ‘new biology’ naturopathic medicine finds its home and its 21st
century leadership role. Naturopathic physicians, even today, however, continue to use outdated language while
invoking vitalism. As scientific evidence from the physical and biological sciences grows and is generating the so
called ‘new science’, the precepts of monistic idealism are gaining ascendancy once more. One can now be a
vitalist without invoking dualism. What is primary in the universe is not matter (the brain). What appears to be
primary in the universe is consciousness and/or information. Body and mind are one. Soul and body are one. Both
upward and downward causation occur in nature.
Classical physics and ‘energy medicine’
Many students of naturopathic medicine confuse ‘energy’ medicine with quantum entanglement. Energy medicine’s
basic concept is that the living organism is both shaped by and emits electromagnetic fields, or biofields. Oschman
(2000) argues in his book ‘Energy Medicine’ that these electromagnetic fields may provide a clearer representation
of the body and its physiology than conventional diagnostic tools. Basic energy medicine propositions do not
require quantum theory, non locality, complementarity, or entanglement to describe or explain them: 1) living
organisms create (or are created by) biomagnetic fields that are measurable and extend beyond the skin; 2) these
fields change continuously in relation to events taking place within the body.
It is important to avoid confusion regarding ideas emerging from the new discipline called ‘energy medicine’ that
do and do not refer to quantum nonlocality and entanglement outside of space-time. We refer to the former as
‘radical energy medicine’ propositions. These include: 1) biofields are unified at a higher level of organization than
the body itself; 2) these fields are interconnected and have non-local qualities. In order for any phenomenon to meet
the definition of ‘non-local’ three qualities are required. The that causal connections involving the fields must be
unmitigated (no change in force with time or distance), unmediated (outside of space), and simultaneous (outside of
time). We can agree that living organisms have fields emanating from them without invoking nonlocal interactions.
Biofields can be understood within classical physics. It is non-local interactions that require a non-Euclidean and
therefore a quantum approach. Highly sophisticated technology is required for us to know that any phenomenon,
any cause-effect relationship, has non-local characteristics. The existence of biological energy fields is adequately
explained within classical physics and does not require quantum theory or a new science beyond Einsteinian
scientific materialism
Is there evidence that scientific materialism is incomplete or even wrong?
The simple answer is yes. Experimental data from quantum physics, biology, physiology, and medicine indicate
that there is more going on in the universe than the propositions of scientific materialism would indicate. In the next
section we will show that there is evidence that causality does not require locality in space or time; that the
5
organism does not end at the skin; that mental events can alter physical reality; that time is not linear; and that
consciousness may be more than an epiphenomenon of brain function.
Data from key experiments in quantum physics
The first experimental data came from Thomas Young’s physics experiments with elementary particles in the
1920s. Young used the double-slit experimental design to show that photons have properties of both matter and
energy (the complementary principle) and that observation of elementary particles changes their nature (Heisenberg
uncertainty principle). In an experimental test of Bell’s Theorem, Aspect, et. al. 1982 were the first to demonstrate
non-local entanglement of elementary particles. In this experiment two correlated photons are emitted by the same
atom and move in opposite directions. In whatever actuality one photon manifests from its quantum possibilities
(e.g. polarity, spin) via measurement (i.e., observation by a conscious being), the other photon manifests the same
actuality even though it is at a distance and there is no signal between the photons. Aspect et al concluded that the
two photons influence one another via a non-local relationship that is outside of time. The change in the state of one
photon instantly changes the state of the other distant photon. This interaction is not influenced by lead shielding
(unmitigated), it is unmediated (distance between the photons does not alter the entanglement of states), and is
simultaneous, requiring no time for the state of the correlated photon to change.
The theory of quantum mechanics is derived from experiments such as these using elementary particles. This theory
postulates that the properties of any atom, or any elementary particle) such as spin, location, or momentum, exist in
all possible states at once – as long as they remain unmeasured. The role of the observer cannot be ignored. In the
parlance of quantum mechanics, observation collapses the wave form into a thing, a particle. In the quantum
mechanics view, the observer creates reality by making an observation that collapses the waveform of possible
states into one state.
Some theoretical physicists have generated broad ontological theories based on these observations. For example,
Amit Goswami, PhD, in his book ‘The Self Aware Universe’ concludes that ‘objects appear from a transcendent
possibility domain into the domain of manifestation, in the presence of awareness of a brain-mind, in order for
measurement to be completed’ (p ___). Such assertions rely on the concept that non-locality and entanglement
occur not just at the micro level of the elementary particle, but also on the macro level of reality where we live, the
world of objects, bodies, space and time. It was not until the last decade of the 20th century that evidence came from
biology showing that non-local interactions and entanglement occur at the macro level. The first evidence for
macro-entanglement came from neurophysiology experiments in humans.
Data from neuroscience
In 1994 Grinberg-Zylberbaum, et. al. published a paper entitled ‘The Einstein-Poldolsky-Rosen paradox in the
brain: the transferred potential’. Using electroencephalographically recorded visual evoked potentials these authors
reported that EEG signals were ‘transferred’ between human subjects who were separated from each other
physically and sensorially. The authors claimed that the observed EEG coherence is an example of non-local
information transfer and thus provided the first evidence of ‘macro entanglement’. Standish et al 2005 replicated
this basic finding in a larger group of human subjects using more sophisticated engineering and statistical signal
detection methods. This same research group replicated the same findings using functional magnetic resonance
imaging technology (Standish, et. al. 2003; Richards, et. al. 2005). Recently Achterberg, et. al. (2005) have used the
same fMRI methods in similarly well controlled studies to show that healers can alter brain activity of a paired
human subject in the scanner. Changes in blood oxygen level dependent signaling was observed when healers were
asked to ‘send’ distant healing intention to another person who was located inside a lead shielded experimental
chamber. While these EEG and fMRI data are intriguing it is premature to claim that these data are evidence of non
local effects. Sophisticated techniques will be required to determine if the neural brain-to-brain ‘signal’ meets the
criteria for non-locality – unmitigated, unmediated, and simultaneous. We do not yet know if the brain signals
observed in these experiments diminish as a function of distance (thus not an electromagnetic field effect), is
undisturbed regardless of shielding, or that the correlated brain signaling does not require time. However, some of
the ‘distant healing’ studies support the hypothesis that such human-to-human interactions may have non local
characteristics.
Data from medicine and ‘field effect’ studies
Biology and medicine have produced several pieces of evidence that suggest that conscious intention can alter
living systems, including human beings, at a distance. In his book “Healing Research” (1993) Benor reviewed the
scientific literature describing the effects of human intention on living systems at a distance. He reviews published
6
data on ‘remote healing’ studies with enzymes, cells, fungi, plants, animals, and humans. While not all studies
showed statistically significant effects, many do, with replication of results across laboratories.
In 1988 the first peer-reviewed medical journal report on distant healing research in humans appeared (Byrd 1988).
In this prospective randomized controlled trial 393 adults admitted to an acute coronary unit were assigned to one
of two arms: those who received intercessory prayer from a prayer group or the control arm which received
standard care only. Byrd reported statistically significant results in that fewer patients receiving distant prayer
required intubation or ventilation, required antibiotics, had cardiopulmonary arrests, developed pneumonia or
required diuretic medication. In 1998 Sicher, Targ, Moore, and Smith reported statistically significant effects in a
population of AIDS patients randomized to receive distant healing by a group of healers. Harris, et. al. in 1999
replicated the original findings of Byrd’s coronary care unit findings in a group of 990 consecutive patients
admitted to the coronary care critical care unit. Astin, et. al. (2000) published a meta-analysis of the efficacy of
‘distant healing’ in the Annals of Internal Medicine. They reported that in a total of 23 well-designed trials 57%
showed statistically significant results and that the binomial probability of obtaining these results across trials was
less than 0.0000008. Since 2000 there have been other data published showing similar effects of ‘distant intention’
and ‘distant healing’ (Lobo et al 2001, Krucoff et al 2001). While the mechanism for such distant effects of
‘intention’ is presently unknown, some scientists assert that these effects are evidence of quantum mechanics’ non
locality and entanglement at the macro level. The proper experiments to determine whether the reported effects of
intention on distant human patients show non-local entanglement properties have yet to be done.
A series of ‘field consciousness’ studies have been conducted by Radin, et. al. Using random number generators
located in 17 locations all over the world, Radin’s group has shown that when many people are simultaneously
attending to one thing, increasing order (less randomness) is observed in the outputs of random number generators.
Radin asserts that these experiments demonstrate the existence of ‘field consciousness’ effects. Similarly, there is a
bit of research showing that group meditation can influence crime rates (Assimakis and Dillbeck 1995). These
authors utilize the field consciousness effect to explain their results. Whether these fields, if they exist, have non
local characteristics remains unanswered. It is a mistake to conclude, without the required parametric studies, that
these data are evidence of macro-entanglement.
Science as a Process
With the publication of Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” in 1962 a new perspective on the
nature of science was recognized and widely supported. Briefly, Kuhn distinguishes between normal science and
revolutionary science. Kuhn (1970) defines a scientific paradigm1 as “a constellation of achievements--concepts,
values, techniques, etc.--shared by a scientific community and used by that community to define legitimate
problems and solutions”. As a world view (interpretation of the world) it serves as an explanatory model of a reality
that cannot be completely encompassed (Cassidy, 1994). Central to the prevailing paradigm throughout the 20th
century, the scientific method is a set of assumptions about how to discover knowledge. Kuhn calls this the normal
science. Normal science refers to theories and empirical methods almost uniformly accepted among scientists at a
given time. Revolutionary science is the term he uses to describe a new theory, the result of unexpected
observations, that first challenges then ultimate replaces the older paradigm. Examples include Copernican
astronomy replacing the Ptolemaic view, Lavoisier’s discovery of oxygen replacing the phlogiston theory,
Einstein’s incorporation of time into the theory of relativity replacing the three-dimensional Newtonian universe,
and Heisenberg’s development of quantum mechanics establishing wave-particle duality and challenging the
traditional concept of objectivity. The normal science will continue under its prevailing paradigm until persistent
anomalies are observed that cannot be fit into the old paradigm. Inconsistencies that are observed repeatedly will
eventually provoke a crisis for the science, a search for a new paradigm will begin, and in one discontinuous shift,
the world view will change.
David L. Hull’s 1988 “Science as a Process” analyzes the development of science in evolutionary rather than
revolutionary terms. Hull argues for an understanding of science as a selection process similar to Darwinian natural
selection and as the product of the way scientists live and work. The conditions in which scientific concepts evolve
are sociocultural, but the mechanisms are similar to those in evolutionary biology. They are, like biological species,
entities which evolve, which change and adapt as conditions allow them to flourish or fade. Hull notes that some
research programs are more successful than others and he counts as reasons for their success being in the right
network (laboratories, journals, etc), having one terminology become dominant, making sure that other scientists
1
From the Greek paradeigma, meaning pattern.
7
can use one’s work and give credit for it. Many research programs fail, “leaving a literature as calcified and
causally inert as fossils of extinct species” (p. 372).
The relevance of both of these theories of science to the principles and practices of medicine cannot be overemphasized. The history of medicine in the 20th century is a compelling tale of scientific and technological
triumphs over a vast number of diseases. These successes illustrate the effectiveness of basic scientific research,
carefully controlled experiments, peer review, experimental replicability, authoritative publication, and continuing
clinical application. In addition to scientific issues, these successes also raised issues in medical ethics and
epistemology, both of which have been the subject of philosophical inquiry in the last quarter of the century.
Examples include the journal “Philosophy and Medicine”, begun in 1975 ( ), Pellegrino and Thomasma’s “A
Philosophical Basis of Medicine” (1981) and Thagard’s “How Scientists Explain Disease” (1999). “Medicine is a
truly scientific endeavor. It shares with chemistry and physics the aim of understanding physical processes.
Medicine as science studies man by observation, mensuration, hypothesis formulation, and experiment under
controlled conditions. In studying man as object, it follows the canons of good science. . . But the basic sciences by
themselves are not sufficient to constitute medicine either as clinical science or medical practice. Medicine, even as
science, must encompass the special complexities of man as subject interacting with man as object. . .” (Pellegrino
p 23 ). Thus, philosophy of medicine returns in very fundamental ways to questions of mind-body relationships and
causal connections.
Social issues that influenced the CAM paradigm shift
What causes ‘paradigm shifts’ in science?
Two forces seem to converge together in the history of science to create ‘scientific paradigm shifts’ and ‘scientific
revolution’: 1) anomalous data and 2) urgent social changes. Many believe that we are in the midst of a paradigm
shift in medical science. The term ‘anomalous data’ refers to experimental data that do not conform to conventional
dogma concerning how the universe works. The central dogma of modern medical science is that of scientific
materialism. ‘Anomalous’ experimental data that do not fit with classical Newtonian physics have been gathering
since the early decades of the 20th century in physics. However, there are scientific data from other fields are
considered ‘anomalous’ since they do not fit well with scientific materialism. There are now compilations of
‘anomalous’ data, not just from the subatomic micro world but also in macro systems, such as living creatures,
including humans. Those data come from the neurosciences and distant healing medical research. Data from distant
healing research and neuroscience are considered anomalous data because the experimental results do not fit in with
the conventional scientific view founded in scientific materialism.
Great changes occurring in mainstream allopathic medicine are also responsible for the ‘paradigm shift’ in
medicine. The allopathic medical model is based on nomothetic science (i.e., one characterized by inviolable
scientific laws). Disease is differentiated from illness. Disease is assumed to have a single etiology (an external
agents such as bacteria or viruses (germs), carcinogens, or injuries, or an internal agent such as a biochemical
reaction or a defective nucleic acid sequence (genes or aging)). Treatment is the “magic bullet” that will counteract
the pathology. The allopathic taxonomy is based on disease types (ICD codes), and the disease determines the
treatment, that is, the physician treats the symptoms of the disease, not the patient. In diagnosis and assessment of
disease outcomes, preeminent importance is given to data obtained from laboratory and other highly technological
instruments (rather than from data given by the patient). The presumption is that all “legitimate” therapies must
have undergone clinical trials and must have an identifiable mechanism of action. The goal of therapy is “cure”,
and health outcomes result primarily from the actions of healthcare professionals, with patients “receiving” care
(Engel, 1977). There is a clear distinction between the physician and the patient. The allopathic model is based on
allopathic3 principles. The model is primarily pharmacological (most treatment is through the use of chemical
agents) or surgical (removing the offending organ or surgically repairing a damaged one). Allopathic medicine is
aimed at relieving or palliating symptoms and suppressing specific pathology.4 Allopathic therapies usually have
negative unintended effects (side effects5) that can weaken and damage the body.6 In terms of research and
3 Allopathy (allo = opposite, path = suffering) is a system of treating disease by producing a condition that is incompatible with or antagonistic to the
symptom that is being treated.
4 Suppression is defined by Taber (1993, p 1866) as “the repression of external manifestations of a morbid condition.” A key principle of naturopathic
medicine is that symptoms should not be suppressed.
5 From a purely pharmacological perspective, drugs do not have side effects but only effects. Physicians then differentiate the effects they intend from
those they do not (Ullman, 1997). The intended positive effects are called the specific effects, unintended positive effects are call non-specific effects,
and unintended negative effects are called side effects.
6 According to a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are experienced by
more than 2 million patients and lead to more than 100,000 deaths in the U.S. per year (Lazarou, Pomeranz, & Corey, 1998). This places ADRs as the
8
treatment, the concept of generalizability asserts that the effect of treatment on one demographic group (i.e., by sex,
age, race, socioeconomic status, etc.) can be assumed to also be the effect of that same treatment on another
demographic group.
This allopathic model cannot account for two phenomena. First, many people who are exposed to a pathogen do not
contract the disease. Second, people who have never been exposed to a certain pathogen can exhibit symptoms that
precisely mimic the pathophysiological stat, i.e., people can experience distress in the absence of any disease that
has a specific pathology (Engel, 1977). Examples of disease without distress (e.g., HIV-positive individuals who
never develop symptoms of HIV disease) and distress without disease (e.g., a patient who has been diagnosed with
chronic fatigue syndrome) do not fit within the allopathic model. The therapies that originated based on a
bacteriology-driven experimental science cannot be effectively applied to the complex chronic disorders that
characterize the majority of current patient problems (Dachter, 1997). The validity of the allopathic model begins to
break down when the disease state is not caused by an infectious pathogen or traumatic injury (the vector model),
and when it is recognized that most diseases have multifactorial etiology.7 By the 1960s, as fewer of the health
problems presenting at the physician’s office fit the vector model, the need for a new model within which to fit this
unaccountable evidence was becoming apparent.
The 20th century has given birth and been witness to epidemics such as AIDS and cancer, cold war and the daily
possibility of nuclear annihilation, space travel to the moon, daily possibility of chemical warfare annihilation, and
global warming. Anomalous data in physics, physiology, brain research, and medicine also arose in the time of the
civil rights movement, followed by the women’s and gay liberation movements, and most recently the alternative
medicine movement. All these major social changes have synergized with anomalous scientific data from multiple
disciplines to create the transitioning state of medical science in which we now find ourselves in the first decade of
the 21st century.
Professional and lay texts often claim that science proceeds by the presentation of anomalous data in the face of the
current scientific belief. Examples include Copernicus’ observations and calculations and Keppler’s data. In late
20th century medical sciences anomalous data have been reported in peripheral neurophysiology (Braud and Schlitz
1997) and central neurophysiology (Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al, Wallach’s group; Standish; Achterberg; Richards;
Kozak). The common view of how change happens in science is that that the experiments and mathematical
calculations that produced anomalous experimental findings that ultimately led to momentous changes in the
scientific paradigm originated de novo from the minds of individual, gifted scientists and the continued
confrontation with the anomalous data finally won out as the older generation died off and the next generation of
scientists could incorporate the data into their worldview. Surely there is an interaction between the anomalous data
and the social context.
An important question remains. What spurred the scientists to even look for the phenomenon that they claimed to
exist while at risk of flying in the face of conventional worldview, practice and wisdom? Few, if any, of the
anomalous data that created a paradigm shift were discovered accidentally. Each of the scientists set out to look for
something that no one before had thought or tried to look for. In the prevailing belief system of scientific
materialism the phenomenon being sought (e.g., healing at a distance) cannot exist. Many of the scientific
experiments considered now instrumental in the ‘new science’ and ‘new biology’ and ‘integrated medicine’ as part
of this idea were inspired by other fields and other traditions. The spread of Buddhism, and we would add
Hinduism, to the west was considered by Will Durant to be the single most important change agent in western
civilization to date. The notion of downward causation that generates much of the new science today germinated
within theology. Western science medicine has been firmly based in a different view of reality than the cosmology
of the east. Scientific materialism has been the underlying philosophy and epistemology of the last 400 years of
western science and medicine. Given the data from quantum physics, neurophysiology, and distant healing research
we must conclude that scientific materialism as a view of nature and reality is, at best, incomplete.
Reductionism, Objectivism, and Mechanism in Modern Medicine
In terms of the principles underlying the scientific method, examples of anomalous data which led to irreconcilable
differences include the following:
fifth or sixth leading cause of death in the U.S. (behind heart disease, cancer, stroke, and pulmonary disease). In comparison, the number of deaths due
to (non-ADR-related) accidents is 90,000 (Murray, 1995). Furthermore, some drugs actually cause the problem they were intended to address; for
example, drug-induced rebound headache (Mathew, 1993).
7 The doctrine of specific etiology developed by Pasteur (1873) is a mechanistic medical model which specifies that for each illness there is a single
necessary and sufficient causal agent or pathogen.
9
1. Reductionism: Reductionism presupposes that complex phenomena are explainable in terms of simpler
component phenomena, that conditions can be reduced to a single etiology, and that qualitative properties
can be reduced to quantitative properties (e.g., the experience of music can be reduced to analysis of
frequencies. It assumes that by disassembling a system into its component parts and then analyzing the
workings of each, an understanding of the system as a whole can be achieved. This approach overlooks
the loss of information (i.e., in terms of organizing principles) that occurs when a system is taken apart
(Kilvington, 1997). Water may be decomposed into hydrogen and oxygen, but studying the properties of
each component will not increase an understanding of the properties of the whole. The increasing
understanding of the interrelatedness of components within systems and between systems, and the
limitations imposed when trying to understand processes in isolation make the results of reductionist
research incomplete at best.
2. Determinism: Determinism asserts that phenomena can be predicted accurately from knowledge of
scientific law and initial conditions, and that any given cause will, always and inevitably, lead to the same
effect. In this view, the biological determinant is necessary and sufficient for the disease, the diagnosis,
and the cure (Drossman, 1998). This principle holds true only if all other things are equal. But in a
complex, dynamic, living system, countless variables intervene so that all other things are never equal.
For example, of ten people who are exposed to a virus, only some will get sick. The major intervening
variable may be the state of each person’s immune system, but the “state of the immune system” is itself
influenced by countless variables. In the subatomic realm, nothing can ever be known with certainty
(Heisenberg, 1958). The implication of this for research is that uncertainty will always exist at some
fundamental level, and reductionism must, at some point (even if only at the subatomic level), fail to
provide absolute answers.8 Uncertainty, where essential reality cannot be known with certainty, replaces
determinism, where physical “reality” is considered to be fixed, determined, and measurable (Zohar,
1990).
3. Linear (unidirectional) causality: Linear causality assumes that any effect can be traced back to a single
prior cause, that cause and effect are distinct from each other, that effect follows cause closely in time,
and that the effect is proportional to the cause. Recognition that there are always multiple intervening
variables causing multiple interactions, and these multiple interactions lead to complex non-linear
phenomena renders the assumption of linear causality invalid. In 1979, Samual Viasrub (editor of the
Journal of the American Medical Association) stated:
a. ‘New cybernetic mechanisms have added further complexity to understanding causality in human
physiology. Cause and effect no longer bear a straight linear relationship to each other. Circular
mechanisms of positive and negative feedback have taken over in the operational depths of
homeostasis. The chain of causation is fast dissolving before our eyes to be replaced by some form
of invariable association that does not lend itself readily to graphic, mathematical, or any other
representation’. (p. 830)
The belief that effect must be proportional to the cause is disputed by the concept of collateral energy,
where energy for the response comes not from the amount of force exerted, but from within the system.
The energy for the effect existed (as potential) before the event that precipitated the disease (e.g., a tiny
virus that causes an epidemic).
4. Mechanism: The mechanistic view of nature asserts that life processes are linearly determined and can be
explained completely by reference to laws governing physics and chemistry. The principle is closely
related to strict determinism: All that happens has a definite cause that gives rise to a definite effect
(Capra, 1975), but it also pertains to the assumption that a cause must be at the same level of the effect.
The concept of mechanism implies that an effect must be spatially contiguous to (or at the same level as)
the cause. Research has demonstrated that disturbance at one level of an organism (e.g., the social
environment) can have an effect at another level (e.g., the physical health of a person) (e.g., Pennebaker,
Kiecolt-Glaser, & Glaser, 1988).
5. Positivism (sensate empiricism): The focus in the scientific method is on sensate empiricism (i.e., that
which can be observed with the senses) to the exclusion of other modes of knowing. Information can be
derived only from physically measurable data. Consequently psychology was excluded from “scientific
study” until the early part of the 20th century when behavioral psychologists argued that only those
behaviors that could be seen and described were valid topics for study (i.e., when “psychology” became
8
Systems scientists believe that reductionism fails long before the subatomic level is reached.
10
empirically observable). Coincidental with the development of more sophisticated psychometric methods,
behavioral psychology began to be viewed as at least a “soft” science. Heisenberg (1958) and
Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939, the “Hawthorne effect”9) argued that the process of measuring
something (someone) changes the behavior. Uncertainty remains regarding the reliability of measurement
in psychological constructs10 and is compounded by the realization that multiple interactions lead to
complex non-linear phenomena. The noetic sciences are founded on the belief that alternative ways of
knowing (e.g., intuition) may also be valid (empirical and publicly reproducible).
6. Objectivism: The scientific method presupposes value-free objectivity, i.e., the only valid reality is
separate from experience and devoid of any higher purpose. In the Cartesian paradigm it was believed
that scientific descriptions could be objective (i.e., independent of observer and the method of
questioning). For most of the 20th century, there has been a steadily accumulating challenge to the notion
that there exists objective knowledge that can be unbiased in interpretations or impartial in its
assumptions (Olds, 1992). Scientists do not deal with “truth”; at best, they deal with limited and
approximate descriptions of reality. In the words of Heisenberg, “What we observe is not nature itself,
but nature exposed to our method of questioning” (1958, p. 58). While physics had long been considered
the ultimate “objective” science for which the scientific method was most successful, by the early 20th
century scientists were beginning to observe anomalies that did not fit the current theories. When
exploring the atomic and subatomic world, physicists discovered that atomic phenomena could not be
described in terms of classical concepts. These questions regarding long-held conceptions about the
nature of reality at the physical level shook the foundation of normal science. Even when all physical
(material) variables have been controlled, consciousness appears able to exert an influence on the
outcome. Primary evidence for this effect comes from quantum physics, where the universe is seen as a
dynamic and inseparable whole that always includes the observer in an integral way (Capra, 1975).
7. Dualism: Cartesian dualism asserted that mind and body are separate. In medical science this is
exemplified by the belief that disease and illness are classified as either organic (i.e., having an
objectively defined etiology) or functional (i.e., having no specific etiology or pathophysiology), or that
disease is objective and “illness” is subjective.
The “old” paradigm has provided a means of gaining much knowledge about one level at which the
world operates (i.e., the materialistic, or physical--particulate-- level). This means of acquiring
information is not invalid; it is, however, incomplete. Nor is the preceding discussion meant to imply that
skepticism is not an important aspect of any scientific research endeavor. The primary implication is that
a phenomenon as complex as healing requires more than can be explained by reductionistic models that
are based on simple deterministic assumptions. An open attitude, one which rigorously and continuously
re-examines its founding assumptions, is vital to the notion of sound model development and research.
See Table 1.
While the reductionistic approach has contributed enormously to scientific progress, its limitations in
understanding the complexities of biological systems are evident. Many authors base their conclusions on
information gleaned from a single level (e.g., a self-report survey), using analyses which do not generally
take complex interactions into account. The current paradigm of molecular reductionism cannot account
for the dynamic self-organizing and self-healing properties of living systems.
Table 1 Philosophical differences between the old paradigm (which governs allopathic
medicine) and the new emerging paradigm (which governs naturopathic medicine).
Old Paradigm
New Paradigm
Rationalism
noetics
Analysis
synthesis
The “Hawthorne effect” refers to changes in the behavior of people, usually for the better, that occur simply because the participants were involved in
a research study. “Hawthorne” was the name of the factory at which the effect was first observed.
10 Richmond and Peterson (1997) maintain that psychological variables can be quantified although they cannot be measured. Furthermore, just
because we do not have the instruments to measure something today does not mean that it does not exist (e.g., blood pressure existed long before the
sphygmomanometer was invented). Just as a microscope enables the human eye to see things that are not visible with the naked eye, computerized
tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) scanning assist the visualization of variance in absorption or blood flow (metabolism). These
instruments provide patterns of information regarding physiological function. As progress is made toward identifying the physiological alterations
brought about by symbolic stimuli, it is conceivable that someday emotions may be measured using similar types of instruments.
9
11
Knowledge
understanding
Authoritarianism
collaboration
Quantity
quality
Reductionism
holism
linear causality
mutual causality
Mechanism
uncertainty
"normal science"
systems science
mechanical isolation
systemic integration
states
processes
goal-seeking
purpose-seeking
The naturopathic philosophical stand in 21 st century medicine
Twenty first century naturopathic and conventional medical students continue to be trained in the basic sciences
that rely on 19th and 20th century scientific materialism as a basic premise. However, the ‘old’ science depends on
basic assumptions such as objectivism, reductionism, and mechanism that are revealing themselves limiting,
incomplete, and inade2qauet for 21st century medicine. The present day naturopathic medical student is perhaps
more aware than conventional medical students of the anomalous data emerging from the new science that argues
that macro ‘quantum-type’ entanglement and nonlocality may be operating in effects that have been observed
during distant brain signaling and distant healing experiments. Yet medical education has yet to fully update its
basic sciences in light of the new biology. This is true at both conventional and naturopathic medical colleges. Both
cultures, while asserting monistic materialism as a fundamental doctrine, refer in linguistic confusion to a fuzzy
kind of dualism that separates mind and body. For example, so called ‘mind body medicine’ is a leading modality
in the so called new ‘integrative medicine’. The very phrase implies a kind of duality. With the start of a new
century, medical school faculty and their students should eschew the imprecise thinking of Cartesian dualism and
continue to incorporate the monistic view.
A fundamental difference between conventional and naturopathic medicine is the naturopathic insistence of the
value of vitalism as an orienting philosophy, and the Vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature, as its core
principle. In modern naturopathic medicine the ‘vis’ is defined as the ‘self organizing principle of living organisms’
or the ‘life force’. If a monistic and holistic approach is taken, then vitalism in the naturopathic medical context
refers to the coherence of the organism, its extended field, and complex, possible, nonlocal interactions between
organisms over large distances. Rather than apologizing for its insistence on vitalism as a principle, modern
naturopathic medicine should reclaim the Vis as a fundamental principle while modernizing the concept via
monism, quantum mechanics, and the ‘new biology’. The naturopathic medical view of holism is also a
phenomenological one that may be unique to naturopathic medicine.
Conclusion
Naturopathic medicine distinguishes itself philosophically from mainstream medicine by its core principle Vis
medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature. Its insistence on referring to the ‘vital force’ has served to isolate,
and perhaps sideline, naturopathic medicine from mainstream conventional and pharmaceutical medicine of the
second half of the 20th century, which has been historically based exclusively on scientific materialism. However,
the experimental findings from quantum mechanics in physics, neuroscience, and the distant healing literature
suggests that scientific materialism is an incomplete description of realty and thus cannot be the sole philosophy of
modern medicine. The findings of the ‘new science’ support the concept of biological field effects, macroentanglement, non-local interaction, and downward causation. A ‘new medicine’ is emerging in the 21st century.
Because these concepts have been part of naturopathic medicine for the last 50 years it is naturopathic physicians
that are best prepared to enter fully into modern non-Cartesian 21st century medicine.
References
Achterberg, J, K Cooke, T Richards, L J Standish, L Kozak, J Lake. Evidence for Correlations between Distant Intentionality and Brain Function in
Recipients: An fMRI Analysis, J. Alt and Comp Med December 2005.
Astin, J.E., Harkness, et al. (2000). The efficacy of ‘distant healing’: A systematic
12
review of randomized trials. Ann of Internal Medicine 132: 903-910.
Assimakis PD, Dillbeck MC (1995) Psychol Rep. 1995 Time series analysis of improved quality of life in Canada: social change, collective consciousness,
and the TM-Sidhi program.Jun;76(3 Pt 2):1171-93.
Aspect, A., J Dalibard and G. Roger. (1982). Experimental test of Bell inequalities using time-varying analyzers. Physical Review Letters 49:1804.
Benor, D. (1993) Healing Research, Holistic Energy Medicine and Spirituality, volume 1, Helix Editions, Ltd, UK
Blakemore, Susan (1999) The Meme Machine. Oxford University Press, New York, N.Y.
Braud and Schlitz (1997) Distant intentionality and healing: assessing the evidence.
Altern Ther Health Med. Nov;3(6):62-73
Byrd, R. (1988) Positive therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer in a coronary care unit population . Southern Medical Journal, 81(7): 826-829.
Capra, F. (1991) The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. Shambhala Publications, 3rd
revised edition.
Capra, F. (1996). The Web of Life. Doubleday, NYC.
Chalmers, David J (1996) The Conscious mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.
Coulter, HL (1991) The Controlled Clinical Trial: An Analysis, Project Cure, Washington DC.
Dawkins, R. (1990) The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press
Dethlefsen, T and Dahlke, R (first published in Germany in 1983; first published in USA in 1991) The Healing Power of Illness. Element Books, Rockport
MA.
Goswami, A (1995) The Self Aware Universe: How consciousness creates the material world. Jeremy Tarcher/Putnam Books, New York.
Grinberg-Zylberbaum J, M Delaflor, L Attie and A Goswami (1994) The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in the brain: the transferred potential. Physics
Essays, 7(4): 422-428.
Harris, W.M., Gowda, et al. (1999). A randomized, controlled trial of the effects of remote, intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to the
coronary care unit. Archives of Internal Medicine, 159 (19).
Heelan, Patrick A. in Handbook of Phenomenology and Medicine, S. Kay Toombs, editor. Kluwer Academic Publihers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2001; p.
47.
Hull, David L “Science as a Process” 1988, University of Chicago Press.
Jonsson C. (1974) Electron diffraction at multiple slits. American Journal of Physics, 42(1): 4-11.
Kozak, L, LJ Standish, LC Clark, T Richards, BK Stewart. Evidence of brain correlations between isolated human subjects: EEG study in a population of
experienced meditators. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Assoc, 48th annual convention, 2005.
Kuhn, Thomas (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Louise, Christa. Systems Principles and Methodologies Within a New Research Paradigm: Assessing the Effects of Naturopathic Medicine, dissertation
Portland State University, 2000.
Merli PG, F Messiroli and G Pozzi. (1976) On the statistical aspect of electron interference phenomena. American Journal of Physics, 44 (3): 306.
Moore, BN and K Bruder (1993) Philosophy: The Power of Ideas. Mayfield, Mountain View California.
Morse, Melvin L (1994). Near death experience and death-related visions in children: Implications for the clinician. Current Problems in Pediatrics, Feb
1994: 55-83.
Narby, Jeremy (1998) The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the origins of knowledge. Jeremy Tarcher/Putnam Trade, New York, N.Y.
Oschman, J. (2003) Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis
Pert, Candace B. (1997) Molecules of Emotion. Scribner, NYC.
Radin, Dean (1997) The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenonema. HarperCollins, NYC.
Richards T .L., L Kozak L.C. Johnson, L J. Standish. Replicable Functional MRI Evidence of Correlated Brain
Signals Between Physically and Sensory Isolated Subjects, J. Alt and Comp Med December 2005.
Russell, Peter (1999) Mysterious Light. Noetic Sciences Review, Dec 1999-Mar 2000 (50): page 9- 16.
Schmidt, Helmut (1993) Observation of a psychokinetic effect under highly controlled conditions. Journal of Parapsychology 57: 351-372.
Schultes, Richard Evan and Albert Hoffman (1992) Plants of the Gods. Healing Arts Press, Rochester, Vermont.
Schwarz G and L Russek (1999) The Living Energy Universe. Hampton Roads, Charlottesville, VA.
Segal, Suzanne. (1996) Collision with the Infinite. Blue Dove Press, San Diego
Shanon B. (2000) The cognitive-psychological study of Ayahuasca. Abstract #370. Consciousness Research Abstracts. Tucson 2000 Toward a Science
of Consciousness Conference, Tucson, Arizona April 2000.
Sheldrake, R. (1981) A New Science of Life, L.A. Tarcher.
Sicher, F, Targ E, Moore D, Smith HS. (1998) A randomized double blind study of the effect of distant healing in a population with advanced AIDS.
Western J Med 169: 356-63.
Skinner, BF About Behaviorism, Vintage Press 1976.
Standish LJ, T Richards, LC Johnson, L Kozak. EEG evidence of correlated event related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated
human subjects, J. Alt. Comp. Med. 2004 10(2):307-314.
Targ, EF (1997) Evaluating distant healing: A research review. Alternative Therapies in Health & Medicine (3): 74-78.
Vergano D. (1997) Science News, 151: 37
Walker E.H. (2000) The Physics of Consciousness. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
REFERENCES from Dr. Lousise
Capra, F. (1975). The tao of physics. Boulder, CO: Shambhala Publications.
Cassidy, C. M. (1994). Unraveling the ball of string: Reality, paradigms, and the study of alternative medicine. Advances: The Journal of Mind-Body
Health, 10(1), 5-31.
Dachter, E. S. (1997). All healing is local. Advances: The Journal of Mind-Body Health, 13(4), 59-60.
Drossman, D. A. (1998). Presidential address: Gastrointestinal illness and the biopsychosocial model. Psychosomatic Medicine, 60, 258-267.
Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196(4286), 129-136.
13
Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and philosophy. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Kilvington, K. A. (1997). Information, energy, and healing: Challenges to biology and medicine. Advances: The Journal of Mind-Body Medicine, 13(3), 3642.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Olds, L. E. (1992). Metaphors of interrelatedness: Toward a systems theory of psychology. New York: Suny.
Ornstein, R., & Sobel, D. (1987). The healing brain: Breakthrough discoveries about how the brain keeps us healthy. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Pennebaker, J. W., Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Glaser, R. (1988). Disclosure of traumas and immune function: Health implications for psychotherapy. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 239-245.
Vaisrub, S. (1979). Groping for causation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 241, 830.
Zohar, D. (1990). The quantum self: Human nature and consciousness defined by the new physics, New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.
14