Two Different Lenses on Health

One of the questions I hear a lot is: “Where’s the science to prove this?” or “ This is rubbish or a scam"

The truth is we’re looking through two very different lenses.

In allopathic (conventional) medicine illness is usually viewed as a specific disease causing a set of symptoms. The aim is to diagnose the disease and then treat or remove those symptoms directly (often with medication or surgery). It’s a brilliant system for emergencies and infections or when something needs immediate intervention. Research is set up to match that model: one drug that is tested against one symptom and under tightly controlled conditions.

Holistic medicine (whether that’s naturopathy, herbs, or BICOM) sees things differently. Here we undersand that illness a sign that the body’s self regulation has been thrown off balance. Stress, nutrition, environment, toxins, or even subtle energetic disruptions can all play a part. The aim isn’t just to switch off a symptom but to support the whole system back into balance so the body can self-correct.

And this is where science struggles. You can’t really isolate one herb or one frequency and study it against one symptom the way a drug is tested. This is because it’s the combination and the whole system effect that matters. Add to that the fact that BICOM works on subtle regulatory and energetic levels and you can see why traditional research tools don’t quite fit yet. It’s a bit like Wi-Fi: you can’t see it, you can’t touch it, but you know it works because you can measure the outcome with the right equipment.

So it isn’t that holistic therapies are unscientific it’s that they operate in a way science hasn’t fully developed the tools to measure. That doesn’t make them less valuable, just different.

Conventional medicine is vital for acute care and crisis situations. Holistic medicine is perfect for prevention, resilience, and chronic health issues. They’re not meant to compete, but to complement each other.