“Empirical” vs. “Scientific” Data
Our personal experiences with colon cleansing – and the experiences of the many healthcare practitioners and individuals who use our products - is not the same as having scientifically validated data. When we report the common sight of thick, dark rubbery bowel movements – this is “empirical” or observational data. It’s not invalid – but it does not conform to the standards used by governing scientific bodies and medical journals, who insist on data gathered from double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled, crossover trials. This type of data we refer to as “scientific”.
Of course, all methods have their limitations and we wanted to share a quote form the British Medical Journal, which pokes fun at today’s “gold standard” of testing:
"Conclusions: As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomized controlled trials. Advocates of evidence-based medicine have criticized the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organized and participated in a double blind, randomized, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute." (read full article at www.bmj.com)
It should also be understood that traditional holistic practices such as internal cleansing resist the reductioistic view used in scientific studies. This is generally due to the fact that by definition, a “holistic” practice works from a “whole system” perspective, which is much harder to measure than an isolated “part” of a system, which is the hallmark of today’s current scientific methodology.