Medicine today is a highly specialized science, advanced through expensive laboratory research published in reputable scientific journals, following strict criteria of scientific evidence.
Meanwhile, unorthodox or alternative medicine thrives on divergent theories, which are more or less in conflict with orthodox medicine.
This division dates back to the 19th century, where the central themes of the modern conflict between orthodox and unorthodox medicine appeared, and this is the subject of my doctoral thesis.
Let’s take a look at some of the key ideas and movements in alternative medicine that have clashed with medical orthodoxy since the early 1800s.
19th century: better diagnoses but a lack of treatments
The 19th The century saw a spectacular development in medical science. At the turn of the century, scientists abandoned the theory that good health could result from the proper balance of fluids in the body, even though this Hippocratic theory had been a cornerstone of medicine since ancient times.
Modern medical sciences looked for specific causes of specific diseases. This change began in large public hospitals, notably in Paris, where the large number of patients provided an inexhaustible source of research material and where diagnoses were quickly verified by autopsy.
Later, medical research moved to the laboratory where the microscope allowed scientists to study and isolate anthrax, cholera and tuberculosis bacteria.
An increasing number of illnesses could be diagnosed and medicine could explain more about human health, but by 1900 doctors were still unable to cure several serious and fairly common illnesses.
We had to wait for the arrival of antibiotics in the middle of the 20th century when doctors were able to treat infectious diseases like tuberculosis.
Learn more: Clay tablets from the cradle of civilization offer new insight into the history of medicine
Bleeding gums and narcotics
The so-called “heroic therapy” was practiced until the 19th century by orthodox doctors. The principle behind heroic therapy was that serious illnesses could only be treated with harsh therapies, leading doctors to resort to frequent bleeding and powerful drugs on already weakened patients.
Mercury compounds were particularly popular and were usually administered until the patient’s gums began to bleed and the teeth became loose. Apparently, this was to make sure the medicine was starting to work.
The booming medical industry in the mid-19th century introduced many powerful painkillers, which today we classify as narcotics. But even by 1900, doctors were often only able to diagnose illness and prescribe a painkiller or calming medication to show that it had at least done something.
The 19th The century also marked a turning point in access to medical care. Until then, doctors only worked for wealthy citizens of large cities. But at 19th In the last century, many Western countries began to develop different types of health care, and for the first time everyone in society had access to educated doctors.
Rejection of orthodox treatments
Several popular movements began to arise in the 19th century in opposition to harsh therapies, powerful drugs, and orthodox medical authorities.th century.
Most of them promoted a more natural method of healing through lifestyle changes or non-toxic treatments. And even as they challenged medical authorities, they also set about presenting their own theories as scientifically viable and establishing medical schools and journals.
American pastor Sylvester Graham was one of many early health reformers. Beginning in the 1830s, he promoted his own health program, known as the “Science of Human Life.”
All human illness arose from too much stimulation, the theory went. In particular, overstimulation of the alimentary system could spread to the nerves and cause disease in other parts of the body.
Learn more: Medicine in Antiquity: from ancient temples to Roman logistics
Less sex, meat and white bread
For Graham, what was morally wrong was also unhealthy. Meat was harmful, not only because it was morally wrong to kill, but also because it overstimulated the body.
The same problem arises with the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea and spicy foods. White flour also contained too much stimulation, only wholemeal flour provided nutrition.
Sex more than once a month is also too stimulating, even for young, healthy individuals, he said. While older and weaker people should definitely participate in sexual activities less frequently, with masturbation being out of the question. It was also necessary to avoid having polluted air in crowded rooms, including ballrooms, theaters and games rooms.
Health as religion
Coincidentally, staying healthy has also become a moral duty. Graham and his followers were convinced that adopting these principles would eliminate disease. And as subsequent generations become healthier and more moral, human life expectancy would increase by several hundred years.
Today, health is sometimes criticized as being a religion. But Graham lived in an age less afraid of religion and actually wanted to explicitly strengthen religious society, through physiological arguments.
Learn more: The history of antirheumatic drugs is one of hope and disaster
Distrust of drugs
Today, there is great skepticism towards medications and vaccination among the general public, who prefer a more “natural” or non-chemical method of healing.
This is also one of the main reasons that motivated many of the health movements of the 19th century: Grahamism rejected conventional medical therapy with drugs, because it could only relieve symptoms and never reached the true causes of disease. Medicines and vaccines were considered poisons that overstimulated the body.
The inventor of homeopathy, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, rejected what he saw as excessive use of powerful medications. He was convinced that diseases should be cured with substances that produced the same symptoms in healthy people that disease produced in the sick. Furthermore, he believed that the active substance should be diluted in water or alcohol until almost all active substance molecules disappeared. This, he said, would make the remedy less harmful and more curative.
95 percent of all diseases originate from the spine
Another healer, DD Palmer, had the same distrust of drugs and vaccines, but developed a rather different therapeutic approach.
In 1895, he invented chiropractic, which he claimed could cure 95% of all illnesses through manual adjustment of the spine. The remaining 5 percent could be cured through adjustment of other joints in the body.
Palmer believed that all illnesses were caused by the flow of what he called innate intelligence – a kind of cosmic energy given at the moment of birth. This flow was hampered by small movements of the joints, he explained. At the same time, he rejected all other remedies, from drugs to diet and from surgery to hydrotherapy.
Learn more: What are the major challenges of modern medicine?
Back to nature – civilization is making us sick
Another alternative to chemical medications was the German method of hydrotherapy. In the United States, hydrotherapy was combined with Graham’s vegetarianism to form the naturopathic health reform movement in the late 19th century.
The basic principle of naturopathy was that life in modern civilization was unhealthy. Every disease originated in one way or another from inadequate metabolism and internal poisoning resulting from an incorrect lifestyle dominated by tobacco, alcohol, meat, lack of exercise and a imbalance between work and leisure.
Even in the Danish branch of the movement, which was far from radical, it was commonly accepted that a healthy body could not be damaged by bacteria as long as it was protected by a healthy metabolism.
The idea that good health comes from a natural lifestyle is still popular, but neither today nor in the 19th century, was there agreement on what exactly constituted “a natural way of life.”
Interestingly, unorthodox movements are emerging at a time when access to educated doctors is open to everyone in society and remains popular despite enormous advances in medical science. Perhaps it all depends on the individual, who thinks they know what is best for their health.
—————
Read this article in Danish on ForskerZonen, part of Videnskab.dk
Scientific links
external links
Related content
