Depends on what you consider "scientific". In common usage, the word has become rather ambiguous, while "UNscientific" is almost as meaningless as the non-German world of the 1930's and 40's calling anyone they didn't like a "Nazi". A decade later, in the "Western bloc" it was "Communist", while the exact ideological counterpart living behind the "Iron Curtain" might be labeled a "Western Capitalist spy". Pure hype!

True science, on the other hand, is FULL of meaning. Fascinating, beneficial, useful meaning. It surely isn't the only "light of the world", as some may be inclined to believe; but, exercised properly, ---(Writer/Astronomer Carl Sagan used to insist that science is more a METHOD of THINKING or WAY of LEARNING than a body of knowledge. Hence the expression "properly exercised") it can dispel much darkness of ignorance --- not as ANOTHER derogatory label, understand, but simply a lack of knowledge about something. The kind of knowledge and understanding DEFICIENCY that can breed not only superstition and fear, but prejudice and even hatred. See how valuable truth is? We'll surely never have it all; but learning is what makes life interesting, while ASSUMING we know so much we can reject other possibilities "out of hand" is the height of arrogance. (AND the most insidiously WILLFUL ignorance)

Actually, the "uncientific" charge leveled against "natural" healing originated with those in the BEST position to KNOW BETTER saying or inferring that there are no positive or favorable "scientific" studies of any non-medical therapies --- which was then repeated so many times by so many "information sources" that it has come to be considered "common knowledge" (IMPLYING "established fact", WHICH IT IS NOT!).

IRONICALLY the U.S. Government "Office of Technology Assessment" on request of the Senate Committee on Human Resources "to examine ... current MEDICAL practices" reported on page 18 of their September, 1978 document " Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies" (NTIS order #PB-286929; Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 78-600117):

"It has been estimated that ONLY 10 TO 20 PERCENT of all procedures currently used IN MEDICAL PRACTICE have been SHOWN to be efficacious BY CONTROLLED TRIAL." (All-caps added by editor for emphasis) NOW WHOSE THERAPIES are "unscientific", while their advocates CLAIM such inadequacy for "natural" health and healing? ---MORE HYPE??

( For a copy of the complete report from U S Goverment Printing Office in PDF format, CLICK (or touch) HERE )

THEREFORE ---- Low Tech Concepts hereby "presents for your viewing pleasure" the following minuscule sample of what one CAN turn up in only ONE SHORT EVENING'S research in MEDICAL journals (cited by folks like American Cancer Society, Cedars-Sinai Health System, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health & Human Services), IF ONE REALLY WANTS TO:

(One glance and you'll probably decide instantly you'd really rather not sift through all this, and that's OK for now. Just scan down the list quickly and look for two things: [1] "double blind" --- the "gold standard" scientific method in which neither field-researchers nor participants know who's getting the real therapy or a placebo; and [2] a generic, non-drug, UNPATENTABLE substance or therapy ---vitamin, mineral, plant, enzyme, etc. (meaning no "big bucks" in it --- the most likely reason these studies are not as widely publicized but you have to "dig" for them.)

Tassman G, Zafran J, Zayon G. A double-blind crossover study of a plant proteolytic enzyme in oral surgery. J Dent Med 1965;20:51-4.

Vaxman F, Olender S, Lambert A, et al. Effect of pantothenic acid and ascorbic acid supplementation on human skin wound healing process. A double-blind, prospective and randomized trial. Eur Surg Res 1995;27:158-66.

Glowania HJ, RAulin C, Swoboda M. Effect of chamomile on wound healing-a clinical double-blind study. Z Hautkr 1987;62:162-71 [in German].

Glowania HJ, Raulin C, Swoboda M. The effect of chamomile on wound healing - a controlled, clinical, experimental double-blind trial. Z Hautkr 1987;62:1262-71.

Tassman GC, Zafran JN, Zayon GM. A double-blind crossover study of a plant proteolytic enzyme in oral surgery. J Dent Med 1965;20(2):51-54.

Taub SJ. The use of bromelains in sinusitis: a double-blind clinical evaluation. Eye Ear Nose Throat Mon. 1967;46(3):361.

Weiss S, Scherrer M. [Crossed double-blind trial of potassium iodide and bromelain (Traumanase) in chronic bronchitis]. Schweiz.Rundsch.Med Prax. 10-24-1972;61(43):1331-1333.

Cowie DH, Fairweather DV, Newell DJ. A double-blind trial of bromelains as an adjunct to vaginal plastic repair operations. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1970;77(4):365-368.

Balakrishnan V, Hareendran A, Nair CS. Double-blind cross-over trial of an enzyme preparation in pancreatic steatorrhoea. J Assoc Physicians India 1981;29(3):207-209.

Howat RC, Lewis GD. The effect of bromelain therapy on episiotomy wounds--a double blind controlled clinical trial. J Obstet.Gynaecol.Br.Commonw. 1972;79(10):951-953.

Mori S, Ojima Y, Hirose T, et al. The clinical effect of proteolytic enzyme containing bromelain and trypsin on urinary tract infection evaluated by double blind method. Acta Obstet.Gynaecol.Jpn. 1972;19(3):147-153.

Ryan RE. A double-blind clinical evaluation of bromelains in the treatment of acute sinusitis. Headache 1967;7(1):13-17.

Baumuller M. Therapy of ankle joint distortions with hydrolytic enzymes-results from a double blind clinical trial. In Hermans GPH, Mosterd WL, eds. Sports, Medicine and Health. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica, 1990, 1137.

Predel HG, Giannetti B, Koll R, et al. Efficacy of a comfrey root extract ointment in comparison to a diclofenac gel in the treatment of ankle distortions: results of an observer-blind, randomized, multicenter study. Phytomedicine 2005;12:707-14.

Hawthorn effective against heart failure: double-blind study Tauchert M. Efficacy and safety of crataegus extract WS 1442 in comparison with placebo in patients with chronic stable New York Heart Association class-III heart failure. Am Heart J 2002;143:910-915.

Peikert A, Wilimzig C, Kohne-Volland R. Prophylaxis of migraine with oral magnesium: results from a prospective, multi- center, placebo-controlled and double-blind randomized study. Cephalalgia. 1996;16(4):257-263. (PubMed)

Pfaffenrath V, Wessely P, Meyer C, et al. Magnesium in the prophylaxis of migraine--a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Cephalalgia. 1996;16(6):436-440. (PubMed)

Mossad SB, Macknin ML, Medendorp SV, Mason P. Zinc gluconate lozenges for treating the common cold. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:81-88.

Ben-Arye E, Goldin E, Wengrower D, Stamper A, Kohn R, Berry E. Wheat grass juice in the treatment of active distal ulcerative colitis: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Scand J Gastroenterol 2002; 37: 444-449.

Brand C, Snaddon J, Bailey M, et al. Vitamin E is ineffective for symptomatic relief of knee osteoarthritis: a six month double blind, randomised, placebo controlled study. Ann Rheum Dis 2001;60(10):946-949.

London RS, Sundaram G, Manimekalai S, et al. The effect of alpha- tocopherol on premenstrual symptomatology: a double-blind study. II. Endocrine correlates. J Am Coll Nutr 1984;3(4):351-356.

Ogunmekan AO, Hwang PA. A randomized, double-blind, placebo- controlled, clinical trial of D-alpha-tocopheryl acetate (vitamin E), as add-on therapy, for epilepsy in children. Epilepsia 1989;30(1):84-89.

Shriqui CL, Bradwejn J, Annable L, et al. Vitamin E in the treatment of tardive dyskinesia: a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Am J Psychiatry 1992;149(3):391-393.

Vetrugno M, Maino A, Cardia G, et al. A randomised, double masked, clinical trial of high dose vitamin A and vitamin E supplementation after photorefractive keratectomy. Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85(5):537-539.