Traditional Medicine (why ConMed will always fail)Chapter 4, The Politics of NHS-ConMed: NHS-ConMed talks of 'progress', but it fails to respect the body, suppresses illness, and works against homeostasis - all in its arrogant belief that it knows better than the human body, that medical treatment can ignore the natural laws of the body.by Steven Scrutton28 August 2011 
Chapter 3, The Politics of NHS-ConMed Chapter 4 - Synopsis This chapter looks at how traditional medicine can inform us that NHS-ConMed can never be an effective or safe medical therapy. It outlines several traditional medical therapies, and what they offer in terms of safe and effective health care, and how they share many common principles of the treatment of illness and disease in common. In particular, it looks at the homeopathic principles of 'like cures like', and the 'suppression of illness', and also the concepts of holism and homeostasis. It explains why NHS-ConMed, by rejecting these principles, can never be, and can never become, a successful method of the treatment of illness and disease. It examines and explains the ongoing failures of NHS-ConMed through the insights provided by traditional therapy. Understanding traditional medicine helps us learn, or perhaps more accurately to re-learn the principles of health, and the treatment of illness. Humanity has known about them through countless millennia, but ConMed abandoned them many centuries ago. It still does not understand or recognise them. Whilst NHS-ConMed has developed prodigious knowledge of the human body, and its pathology, it fails to understanding what constitutes, what generates, and what maintains good health. It understands the mechanism of illness, but fails entirely in its ability to treat it successfully. During the last 100 years, whilst ConMed has monopolized public medicine, we have forgotten the wonderful, and very simple secret of healing. In its place we have been encouraged to believe that medical science, and particularly pharmaceutical drugs, are the secret to good health. As their record demonstrates, they are not. The fundamental secret of healing is the human body, and its ability to heal itself. The body has its own subtle source of internal energy that keeps it alive and well. When this becomes compromised (by bad diet, stress, or other factors) this energy can fail, and the body becomes sick. However, when this happens it does not require powerful drugs to 'force' it into well-ness - it requires the body's energy to be gently and safely assisted to overcome the problem. The principles of supporting the body to maintain health are alive and well, and can be found in traditional medical therapies. Yet whilst they have maintained humanity's ancient knowledge, understanding, and experience of treating illness, safely and effectively, they have been virtually excluded from the NHS. They are available now only outside mainstream medical practice. The NHS-ConMed monopoly has successfully sidelined traditional medicine. It has discounted the millennia of experience that herbalism, homeopathy, acupuncture, osteopathy, et al. These therapies are gentle, safe, effective and inexpensive. They remain firmly based on principles or laws that enable us to maintain and regain health, each recognising in their own way the dynamic energy within the body that underlies and supports health, an energy that sometimes requires gentle nurture, but which, if properly supported, will maintain us in good health. Traditional therapies have survived, quietly and unobtrusively, despite the uninhibited, free-for-all orgy of drugs, medical testing and surgery that have been publicly funded for the last century. An increasing number of people have re-discovered them in recent years, attracted by the ongoing failure of NHS-ConMed, and for their inherent safety and effectiveness. A 'Eureka' momentWhen I developed painful gastric ulcers 30 years ago I went to my GP – it was the normal, routine thing to do – we all do it – it is what is expected of us. I was in pain, and the new 'miracle' drug my GP gave me offered me the prospect of cure. Indeed, it did work - 3 times - only for the condition to return again within a few months. I then discovered that this 'miracle' drug had been found to have serious adverse reactions on the heart. So for the first time, I began to question what I was doing. All I knew at the time was that I did not want a bad heart as well as a bad stomach! I seemed to have a choice between taking a 'wonder' drug and risking its DIEs, or putting up with pain that was at times unbearable. The NHS gave me no advice about traditional therapies - there was no alternative! So when someone suggested I went to see a local homeopath I was so ignorant I told her that I did not believe in such things! But the pain increased, and unwilling to take the drug, I went to see him, took the remedy he gave me, and within days I felt better. Within 3 months I was pain free – and have remained so for over 30 years! NHS-ConMed will dismiss my experience as 'anecdotal', 'unscientific' - just as it has done for the millions of people throughout the world during the last 200 years who have found homeopathy to be both effective and safe. Yet for me, and for many others, it was a 'Eureka' moment - for two reasons. First, I realised that I was not being told the truth, or at least not the whole truth. The NHS were denying me both information about, and access to homeopathy. From that day I could no longer accept what they told me without question. Second, I began to study homeopathy, informally, and suddenly I could begin to make sense of the world of health and disease in a way I had never done before. Disease was not something that struck people down indiscriminately. I had gastric ulcers because of my stress-full life-style, because of what I was eating, how I was eating it, and because I never took the time to allow my body to relax and recover. What my homeopath said made sense. The remedy would help but I could help myself a lot more by changing my life-style. I began to understand the concept of 'susceptibility' and 'pre-disposition' to disease, and could explain why it was, for instance, that whilst medieval plagues that killed many thousands of people, not everyone died. It was an amazing moment. The clarity of my new understanding and insight into health was empowering. I began to see through the 'battleground' that NHS-ConMed had created, their war against bacteria and viruses, their attack on childhood diseases, their invasive and aggressive vaccinations, their drugs that 'fought' this, and 'destroyed' that. In short, NHS-ConMed thought that it could 'balance' the human body better than its own self-healing mechanisms! What arrogance! The medics knew best, and drugs were the miraculous answer to disease of all kinds. At last I recognised the arrogance of the NHS-ConMed Establishment, and indeed the reason for its ongoing, abject failure. I was able to understand the body’s relationship with the world in which it lived, and how, in contrast to NHS-ConMed, homeopathy sought to enhance the body’s ability to maintain, and when ill, to regain its own health. The human body has an amazing ability to protect itself from harm, and to heal itself from the dis-ease it suffers. The medical warfare that NHS-ConMed promulgated against the body was not only doomed to failure - it was unnecessary and it was positively harmful to our health. Not only did I no longer want to take ConMed drugs, I now understood why they were so obviously wrong, so self-evidently counter-productive to health. I began to examine what was happening to people within my family, my friends and work colleagues, not through the eyes of NHS-ConMed, but in terms of my new understanding. For instance, I saw older people in residential homes taking a cocktail of drugs and getting more rather than less sick. Residents seemed progressively to lose interest in the world, and then die. Of course, this was all put down to their age. But I was not convinced that the drugs they were taking were not playing an important part in their decline and death. So my world changed. What had seemed normal and acceptable was no longer so. What I thought was safe was no longer safe. Other explanations presented themselves that fitted the facts much better than conventional NHS-ConMed explanations. NHS-ConMed was not producing a healthy population. Virus hunters and germ killers within the NHS were not succeeding, despite successive governments increasing spending on it. People were not living healthier or happier lives. Even NHS-ConMed’s claim to be increasing life-expectancy did not ring true, certainly if 'quality' of life was also placed into the equation. And then there were the new diseases - the rapid rise in autism, dementia, et al. Where were these coming from? NHS-ConMed drugs became a prime suspect, not the only one perhaps, but one that had hitherto been ignored. Even the 'old' diseases that ConMed had supposedly 'conquered' were beginning to return - TB, Malaria, et al - and with even greater seriousness and vigour (Chapter 5). No objective examination into our health over the last century can conclude that we are producing a healthier society. If NHS-ConMed’s treatments were genuinely curative (as it persistently claims), surely there would now be signs of a healthier population? Yet the NHS-ConMed establishment does not seem to notice that we are getting sicker, but instead continues to bemoan the 'under-funding' of the NHS. Then, another 'Eureka' moment - that this hugely powerful medical establishment could not admit weakness or failure because to do so would jeopardise its privileged social and financial position. What was happening within NHS-ConMed Establishment was that money, and financial interests, spoke more loudly than the health of the nation. Vested financial interests not only perpetuated and generated sickness - NHS-ConMed had a vested interest in doing so. And then another realisation. NHS-ConMed was not only suppressing the truth about its failure, their drugs were also suppressing illness. Its central myth is that by investigating the sick body in order to find out what is wrong it can then 'correct' the situation through drug treatment. This is the view of the mechanic. They examine a sick individual, much as a mechanic looks at a car, make a diagnosis, fiddle with the components, and then attack or remove what they understand to be abnormal or wrong - either through drugs, radiation, and ultimately by surgery. In doing this NHS-ConMed makes an assumption that the body is quite useless, and cannot be part of its own treatment. So its 'treatment' often attacks the body’s own self-defences and succeeds only in undermining the body's ability to protect itself. Indeed, drugs only introduce new unbalances, new toxicities to the body - they are known as 'side-effects' or 'adverse reactions'. I call them DIEs because rather than helping us get better, our health is actually compromised. We become sicker, or contract new diseases So the poisons and toxins that are an inherent part of NHS-ConMed’s treatment make the situation worse. Some treatments may seem to provide short-term benefits, but in the long term the patient becomes more ill, the disease becomes worse, or the patient is struck other, apparently unrelated diseases. So on this analysis NHS-ConMed was not just unsuccessful, it actually contributed to ill-health. Again, homeopathy was able to explain the reason for this because it taught that suppressing illness serves only to drive illness deeper into the body. So whilst patients may initially appear to get well, eventually they become sicker. This progression from illness to more serious illness is usually explained as 'bad luck'. The patient has been 'unfortunate', being 'struck down' by a succession of illnesses. There is certainly no recognition that the outcome might be the direct result of drug treatment. Traditional therapies know that the way forward is not through isolating viruses, or developing vaccinations, or discovering drugs to ‘force’ the body into compliance. Instead, they understand the body's ability to keep us well, and encourage us to live in ways that supports health. They work by gently utilising and supporting the inherent self-healing qualities of our body to helps regain health. Traditional therapy is the body’s servant, and it is important to understand that no successful health therapy can work in any other way. Traditional Therapies - working with the bodyThere is a vast amount of knowledge and skill available from within traditional medicine. It has been gathered over millennia, and is all now virtually lost to the NHS in its present form. It has been a massive loss, and provides an explanation for its ongoing failure. NHS-ConMed does not have all the answers!We have seen how NHS-ConMed was able to generate huge levels of expectation during the 20th century, and how it came to dominate our understanding of health. The result is that its views on health now represents the accepted 'conventional' wisdom, the dominant way people think about their bodies and their health. Most people thought that there would be no need for traditional therapies, that the 'old' medicine would just wither and die in the face of new 'scientific' understandings, and advances in drugs and surgical procedures. There was an assumption that there would be no need for anything other than NHS-ConMed treatment in future. This is a view that it has sought to promulgate, at every opportunity, and it continues to do so. The survival of traditional therapiesThe main reason for the survival of traditional medicine is that NHS-ConMed does not have the answers to the important health issues that confront us. Initially they survived because small groups of devotees continued to practice them, loyally supported by those who retained the remnants of late 19th century dislike and mistrust of ConMed treatment. In more recent times they have benefited from an increasing realisation about how ineffective, dangerous and expensive NHS-ConMed had become. It is becoming increasingly difficult to cover up NHS-ConMed’s failings, so gradually more people are returning to traditional therapies. Despite ConMed’s financial wealth, its power within the political establishment, and its hold over the media, it has been found wanting. It has failed to deliver what it has so often and so consistently promised. So there is a need to re-examine some of the ancient traditions of medicine, to focus on what our ancestors knew, and to stop dismissing them as 'primitive', 'backward', or 'unscientific'. "The art of healing comes from nature and not from the physician. Therefore, the physician must start from nature." Paracelsus 1493-1541. Old Wives' TalesNHS-ConMed did not just make decision to discard the insights of traditional medicine, thereby abandoning that huge body of knowledge that had taken millennia to establish - it also decided to trash them. It continues to do so. With NHS-ConMed’s growing confidence about its new ‘miracle’ drugs, it went on the offensive. Traditional therapies were 'old-fashioned', and did not work. They were no better than 'old wives' tales. The position of NHS-ConMed on this has been consistent - there is no 'scientific' validity for any form of traditional medicine. Any evidence suggesting that traditional medicine works has been routinely dismissed. It is just 'placebo'. Or the evidence was merely 'anecdotal'. Now NHS-ConMed makes these assertions without even bothering to investigate further than their prejudice and vested interests allow. Their frequent response - “there is no proof” - means just that. NHS-ConMed has never bothered to investigate in order to find the evidence! It means that empiricism, and empirical evidence, by which I, and many millions of other people, can say: is summarily dismissed. People with such experience are dismissed as if they are all very silly, or just plain liars. So here we will examine the situation from the reverse angle. Traditional therapies provide us with insights that explain why NHS-ConMed has never worked, will never work, and can never work. One of my primary motivations for writing this e-book was being dismissed, out-of-hand, and with maximum discourtesy, by an NHS-ConMed consultant at a House of Lords meeting in early 2006. I determined from that moment that I no longer felt any professional duty to avoid being critical of medical 'colleagues'. If NHS-ConMed is happy to 'rubbish' traditional medicine, including homeopathy, it was time that the activities of NHS-ConMed were more closely scrutinised - although I hope in a more reasoned and reasonable manner. HerbalismThe use of plants to cure disease is as old as mankind itself. Nor is it confined to humanity. Animals use plants when they fall ill. The dogs I have kept over the years have often sought out, and eaten certain kinds of grasses and plants - and have often vomited as a result. They are probably purging themselves of toxicity that is making them unwell. I have always found it amazing that animals have maintained an awareness of plants and herbs, despite centuries of human domestication. As far as humanity is concerned, a grave excavated in Iran in 1963, and thought to date to some 60,000 years ago, contained many herbs that are assumed to have been medicinal offerings to the deceased for a future life. And the use of herbs is quite literally world wide. ConMed’s own roots were in herbalism. The problem they had with herbs and plants was that they were common, universally available, and the knowledge about their uses were known and available to all - even by those they considered to be 'unsophisticated', or 'uneducated' people. So the 'wise women' of village communities became the 'old wives' who 'tales' have been so often ridiculed. These were the women persecuted by the Church because it believed their knowledge of curing illness was 'unnatural', or indicated an association with 'magic' or 'myth'. Their knowledge of matters concerning fertility and abortion were particularly frowned upon. The result was that during the 15th to 18th centuries many millions of simple, unassuming, honest, decent 'herbalists' were burnt, or otherwise murdered by the Christian Church throughout Europe and Northern America.< Even so, during the 19th century, herbal tinctures, potions, cordials, and lotions were plentiful, common and cheap. And it appeared that many people were happy with them. However, the trade in herbs was entirely unregulated. Charlatanism and sheer crookery abounded, and extreme and nonsensical claims for the efficacy of certain concoctions did nothing to enhance its reputation. Yet modern herbalism has much to offer. Herbal medicines can relieve symptoms rapidly, and it is particularly powerful in acute conditions. Herbalists today usually take a full medical history, including a complete dietary history. This enables them to select a remedy for the individual rather than for a disease, a remedy that seeks to return the body’s balance to normal. So herbalism is a holistic therapy, treating the whole person, and not just specific parts of the body, or particular illnesses. HomeopathyHomeopathy began with the discoveries of a German physician, Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843). The term 'homeopathy' comes from the Greek words 'homoios' which means similar, and 'pathos' which means suffering. 'Similar suffering' refers to the fundamental principle of homeopathy, more usually called the 'Law of Similars'. The Law of Similars is an ancient and widely used principal. It was described by the ancients, notably Hippocrates and Paracelsus, and has been used within many cultures, including the Mayans, Chinese, Greeks, Native American Indians, and Asian Indians. What Hahnemann did was to codify the Law of Similars into a systematic medical therapy. Hahnemann also made homeopathy an entirely safe form of medicine by another major discovery – the idea of minimum dose. Some of the substances he used were very toxic poisons. He realised that if these poisons produced symptoms of illness they could also cure those same symptoms in a sick person. So in order to make them safer he began to dilute them. In doing so, he discovered that not only were diluted substances safer, but he could continue the dilution until nothing of the original substance remained and they continued to work. Moreover, the higher the dilution, the stronger the medicinal effect became. Neither of these discoveries are recognised by NHS-ConMed. In a BMA book, "Understanding Complementary Medicine" by Dr George Lewish, (Family Doctor Series) this is said about homeopathy: Most conventionally trained doctors find it difficult to imagine how homeopathy works. Indeed, if homeopathy does work then the mechanism involved challenges sciences whole understanding of the body's biochemistry and physiology. So as a consequence, homeopathy has, over the last 200 years, has been the subject of intense and often hostile debate within medicine. Homeopathy continues to be subject to hostile attacks by the NHS-ConMed establishment. Yet in the 200 years of its existence, homeopathy has treated all illnesses and diseases, has done so more successfully than ConMed, and can treat illnesses for which ConMed has no treatment. And it can do so safely, and cost-effectively. NaturopathyNaturopathy treats disease on the principle that healing depends upon the action of the natural healing forces that exist in the human body. Vis medicatrix naturae means the healing power of nature – a very ancient principle. Hippocrates seems to been one of the first to realize the importance of nature’s own powers of healing. Naturopathy involves discovering and removing the root cause of disease whether it is chemical (faulty diet, breathing elimination), mechanical (spinal mal-alignment, muscular tension, stiff joints, bad posture, etc) or psychological. The Naturopath elicits the symptoms, makes his diagnosis, and then treats the patient. They see acute disease as the body’s attempt at healing itself, and so they do not like to suppress these symptoms – they understand that they are there for a reason. Naturopathy has more to do with personal education than actual treatment. After making an assessment of the patient, suggestions are made about what the patient should do in order to get well, and stay well. It is all designed to help individual restore balance in their bodies, and wholeness to their lives. Naturopaths will often use osteopathic techniques when there are alignment or postural problems. And use is often made of herbal and homeopathic remedies. There is also a large psychological element in Naturopathy as it recognises that so many diseases originate in the mind and the emotions. Yet perhaps the most important emphasis is on diet. Naturopathy has been at the forefront of recognising that our food is now deficient, because intensive farming has denuded our soils of nutrients, and the use of herbicides and pesticides have made it poisonous. The factory farming of animals, and the use of antibiotics and other ConMed drugs, have compromised the nutritional value of meat. AcupunctureWhenever I think of Acupuncture now I have visions of a recent Channel 4 television broadcast that looked at whether there was 'scientific evidence' to support Acupuncture. The programme began with a woman having open-heart surgery without anaesthetic. The pain was being managed entirely with acupuncture. Having watched this operation in progress, the scientist-presenter said that whilst it appeared to work, she wanted to discover whether science could actually prove that acupuncture worked! This type of 'science' is clearly totally blind, certainly one that is not prepared to see what it can see before its very eyes! Lionel Milgrom has described it as the science of 'The New Fundamentalists', a science that says that if something cannot be proven by 'randomised, double blind trials' it cannot exist.
As Milgrom himself concludes, "It is itself, therefore, unscientific, indeed, it is anti-scientific" Acupuncture is an ancient Chinese therapy dating back at least 3000bc, and probably much longer. The word means to puncture (puncture) the body with needles (acus). But its origins are not entirely Chinese as it is known to have been used in Africa, by the Eskimos, and in other civilisations too. Acupuncture discovered that in all diseases there are certain tender areas on the body that disappear when the disease is cured. These are the acupuncture points, of which there are about 1000 in Chinese literature. These points are classified into 12 main groups, with the points of each group being joined by imaginary lines called meridians on the body’s surface. These 12 meridians control the lungs, large bowel, stomach, spleen, heart, small bowel, bladder, kidney, pericardium, the ‘triple warmer’, the gall bladder and liver. Acupuncturists work on the basis that these meridians are an integral part of what makes us function. They believe that there is a 'life-force', or 'Chi' that circulates around these meridians, and that stimulating these points stimulates the life force itself. The Factors Linking Traditional TherapiesAll traditional medicine has certain shared understandings and beliefs that differ significantly, or are diametrically opposed to those of NHS-ConMed. This is why it is wrong to describe traditional therapies as 'complementary' as in essence they are not complementary at all:
hese are the features that unite traditional therapies, and they are the features that NHS-ConMed has abandoned. They enable traditional therapies to work safely and effectively. And it is the abandonment of these features that makes NHS-ConMed ineffective, unsafe, and dangerous. The Life Force and HomeostasisMost traditional therapies have developed a concept concerning a 'life force' that underlies, maintains, and is present in all life forms. In homeopathy it is called the 'Vital Force'. In Acupuncture it is called 'Chi'. There is no requirement to become too spiritual or religious about such concepts. What they refer to is something that exists within each organisms to maintain all the many processes within the body that quietly, naturally, and 'unconsciously' keep us alive. NHS-ConMed has developed an enormously intricate knowledge of the distinct parts of the human organism - the heart, the liver and other organs; blood circulation, the alimentary system, the hormones, and so on. Medical science has demonstrated that within every organism there are many thousands of delicately interlinking parts and processes, each intimately interrelated to each other. Normally, they all act in balance and harmony. Yet despite the best endeavour of medical science, and their complex and intricate knowledge of how the body works, there is still little knowledge about what keeps the whole mechanism alive and functioning in harmony. One concept that seeks to link together the all the mechanisms that control and regulate the body is known as 'homeostasis', developed by the American physiologist Walter Cannon in the 1930’s. He was impressed by 'the wisdom of the body' that is capable of guaranteeing with efficiency the physiological equilibrium of the human body. He recognised the body as a finely tuned instrument, subtly programmed to 'heal itself'. There are many examples of homeostasis, process that occur without us ever having to think about them:
When the body becomes ill the organism detects changes in its environment and responds appropriately to maintain health and life. These changes happen at every level, from the broad levels of functioning described above, to the much finer changes that take place at a cellular level. Homeostasis: the body cures itselfThe underlying secret of traditional therapies is that each, in their own way, seeks to augment rather than interfere with homeostasis. Each therapy believes in the body’s essential energy, and its ability to heal itself. They seek to give the body some gentle assistance when it becomes stressed, or too compromised to cope on its own, without help. The object is to support homeostasis, not to interfere with it. For instance, homeopathy, by identifying a remedy with similar a symptom picture to the illness ('like curing like') is merely giving the patient’s body a 'nudge', supporting the natural healing mechanisms that are already active and trying to work within the body, encouraging them to work more vigorously. Drugs unbalance homeostasisThe drugs of NHS-ConMed have quite a different objective. They aim to make the body perform 'correctly', by 'killing', 'inhibiting', or 'blocking' particular functions within the body. ConMed has always been involved in doing some form of violence to the body. In the past it sought openly to purge the body, to make it sweat or vomit, or to remove its life-blood. Today NHS-ConMed drugs seek to deaden pain, to suppress fever, to modify the action of the heart, or liver, or kidneys, or some other organ; to increase or decrease appetite, and the retention of water, and all are directed to work in the opposite direction to the body, and the process of homeostasis:
And in this sense, they usually work. Temperature and inflammation is reduced, and pain is killed. But drugs work only at this 'mechanical' level. They treat the symptoms, not the cause of the symptoms. They suppress temperature, inflammation, and pain. but once the physical impact of the drug declines, more drugs are required to maintain the suppression, and, as time goes on, stronger drugs are increasingly needed. The drug-suppression of illness works against homeostasis. Body temperature, inflammation, and pain are all mechanisms used by the body to correct what is wrong. By interfering with these natural mechanisms, NHS-ConMed battles against the body. Taken to extremes this approach has always killed people. King Leopold II of Austria became ill, and his physicians diagnosed Rheumatic Fever. The theory then was that this was the result of ‘bad blood’, so they drained his life-blood, three times, and perhaps not surprisingly he died. Many people were killed by bleeding as it directly interfered with the life-force, removing the very bodily material that would have done its best to make them well! Goethe, Raphael, Lord Byron, George Washington all died not from the illnesses they contracted, but from this form of ConMed treatment. But of course, bleeding is not part of NHS-ConMed treatment now. ConMed has a long and inglorious history of introducing ineffective and dangerous treatments only to withdraw them later, and eventually to disassociate themselves from them. The history of NHS-ConMed is littered with such mistakes. When favoured treatments become untenable, and ConMed is forced to accept that they have failed, they move on to something else - only to make the same, or similar mistake again - interfering with the body's natural defences. In more recent times NHS-ConMed has discarded many of its 'old' discredited drugs, and other forms of invasive treatment. So it no longer uses Thalidomide, it has reduced its use of HRT, and it is currently paying the price for having used Vioxx. There is little doubt that NHS-ConMed will introduce many more drugs in future that seek to 'force' the body back to health - and then be forced to withdraw them. And although NHS-ConMed continues to talk of 'progress' all it seems to do is to continue making the same mistake. It fails to respect the body, it suppresses illness, it works against homeostasis - all in its arrogant belief that it knows better than the human body, its belief that medical treatment can ignore and supersede the natural laws of the body. This arrogance, this insistence about making the body conform to the way it believes it should function, is when DIEs happen. What NHS-ConMed calls 'adverse reactions' are no more, and no less, than a reaction of the body to a threat, an invasion. They result from the body not wanting to do what a drug is forcing it to do. The Whole PersonHolistic medicineTraditional healing systems go back to the beginnings of recorded history, and no doubt much further. It was stressed in India and China over 5000 years that living in harmony with nature was the secret of health. Socrates, who lived in Greece during the 4th century BC, warned against treating only one part of the body "for the part can never be well unless the whole is well" Holistic medicine is defined as a system of health care that takes in the physical, mental, emotional, social, environmental and spiritual aspects of life. It stresses the need to deal with the whole person, including every aspect of lifestyle. It emphasises the importance of the individual taking responsibility for his/her own health, to take responsibility for achieving balance and well-being in their lives. It focuses on how the whole person is interacting with his/her environment, with illness arising when there is a lack of balance and stability in this relationship. Holistic health is based on the fact that the whole person is made up of a multitude of different parts, but that these different parts cannot be separated or treated in isolation. When one part is not working properly it has an impact on all the other parts. Moreover, these parts are constantly interacting with the physical world, so for instance when an individual is feeling under stress he/she will often develop physical symptoms of illness, for example, a headache, or a stomach upset. If stress continues unabated the illness will become more serious, and affect the individual at an every-deep level. When the individual does become ill, holistic health principles can be applied to treatment. The therapist works in partnership with the patients, and treatment consist of recommendations that support the body's natural healing system, and considers the whole person, in his/her whole situation. Symptoms of illness are not treated on the basis of temporary relief, but as an indication that something much deeper and more fundamental requires attention. The specialisms of NHS-ConMedNHS-ConMed has retreated almost totally from this position. As it studied the human body in ever-increasing detail and complexity it has progressively developed specialist areas of study and expertise. NHS-ConMed specialists focus on increasingly smaller parts of the body, on specific organs or bodily systems, or on attacking microbial and viral 'invaders' that are thought to be the cause of ill-health. So they have specialists for the heart, the kidneys, the liver, the skin, et al. And they have specialists in the treatment of specific diseases, such as cancer. These are artificial, un-holistic distinctions made within NHS-ConMed because of their failed understanding of human health, and what is required to treat illness. And then, in addition, NHS-ConMed offers a variety of operations, many of which inform us that when a patient is having a problem with a particular organ, the problem can be easily resolved by removing them! The Law of SimilarsHomeopathy is based on an ancient principal - the Law of Similars. Homeopaths believe that this is a natural law, not merely an 'optional extra' that can be used or ignored. It is the underlying basis of an effective therapy. This being so it becomes clear that NHS-ConMed, based on the reverse understanding of health and the treatment of illness, is based on diametrically opposed principles. They cannot both be correct! If one is right, the other must be wrong! So either homeopathy works, and NHS-ConMed will not. Or vice versa. The only other alternative is that both of them are wrong, and neither will work! The argument here is that any medical system that does not encompass the ancient insights of traditional medicine, the accumulated wisdom and experience of millennia, is condemned to failure. ConMed has done just this consistently over the centuries, and continues to do so by refusing to take seriously the testimony of people who have been made well by traditional medicine. Why Homeopathy worksThe Law of Similars states that we must match the symptom picture of a person who is ill or injured to the known symptom picture of a remedy. It is a principle that can work effectively with any illness when there is a correct match. Homeopathy uses remedies made from substances that are known to cause symptoms of illness in a healthy person, but which cure those same symptoms in a sick person. The remedies recognise that the symptoms of ill-health are an expressions of imbalance within sick people, and by introducing similar systems to the body via a remedy, boosts the body's natural self-healing capabilities. Ask any homeopath. If a remedy can be found to match an illness, regardless of how serious, or chronic it may be, as long as the patient’s life force is strong enough, it can be treated successfully. Likewise, and more important in this context, if a homeopath gives a patient a remedy that does not closely match his/her illness the remedy will have no effect whatsoever. If the remedy and the illness are not matched accurately, there will be no benefit - nothing will happen. This is why the Law of Similars is called a 'Law'. It is a law because it is a necessary pre-requisite to healing and cure. It is not just an interesting idea that can be ignored. Any medical therapy that treats illness by giving the patient a physical substance has to rely upon it. It is a 'natural' law, a necessary and essential precursor to the successful treatment of illness. ConMed and the abandonment of the Law of SimilarsMany centuries ago, ConMed decided to ignore this fundamental law of health. It has suffered from the decision ever since, and its failure to develop successful treatments for illness and disease is directly attributable to it. What they did was rather like trying to suspend the law of gravity in order to improve the efficiency of travel! This would be an excellent idea - it would make travel both easier and cheaper with less pollution. But of course it is not possible to do so! NHS-ConMed has devoted its energies to observing and understanding of how the body works, in increasingly complex detail. It assumes that by identifying what is 'normal' it can identify what is 'wrong' in illness, and develop methods, mainly drugs, to 'correct' or 'counteract;' it. This is why so many drugs are prefixed or suffixed by the words 'anti', or 'killer', or 'inhibitor', or 'blocker'. They are designed to oppose what is seen to be 'wrong', or what is deviating from the 'normal' in the human body. The problem is that by doing so NHS-ConMed is seeking health by working in the opposite direction to the Law of Similars. The basis of its treatment is loosely based on the concept that 'opposites' cure, sometimes called an 'allopathic' approach:
Unfortunately the 'law of opposites' does not exist within the natural world, and as the body knows of no such law, the treatment fails to work. It is true that allopathic drugs can give the appearance of working. For instance, pain killers do deaden pain, if only for a short time; and ACE inhibitors do inhibit the enzymes believed to produce heart attacks, but only temporarily. NHS-ConMed drugs do not, and cannot treat illness successfully over time because they do not conform to the physical 'laws' of the human body. It is perhaps amusing, although sad, when NHS-ConMed sometimes stumbles on to a case of 'like curing like' but is unable to recognise it. For instance, the Guardian (23rd May 2006) reported that men, who had been in a vegetative state for many years, were brought temporarily to life (they were able to speak and interact with their families) when they took a sleeping drug. Conventional medics were said to be ‘puzzled’, and asked for more research. If they had been able to recognise the Law of Similars in operation they may have realised that a 'vegetative state' might indeed be affected positively by sleeping pills that are designed to put us to sleep, or into a temporary 'vegetative' state. It was 'like curing like' in action, and if they gave the sleeping pills in homeopathic potency, their unexpected success might have brought more long-lasting benefits. Empiricism: the Law of Similars works because people know it worksThe Law of Similars works, and this is proven empirically by homeopaths on a daily basis. Traditional therapies have survived over the last 100 years almost solely on the basis that they work effectively. After all, they have had few other advantage! They have had no government funding. They have not survived because patients are given easy access to them. They are not 'free at the point of use'. They have survived only because significant numbers of people have discovered for themselves that they work successfully in the treatment of illness. A similar question can be asked, in reverse. Would NHS-ConMed survive if people had to pay for it? This seems unlikely. It has prospered only with the support of governments, spending our money freely and generously, and creating a huge medical monopoly. Unfortunately NHS-ConMed has a problem with empiricism. It routinely dismisses empirical evidence as 'anecdotal' and 'unscientific'. It states regularly that if traditional medicine works at all it does so only by virtue of the 'placebo' effect, that is, it works only because people think that it will work. Homeopaths are regularly assaulted by this accusation - but it is one that is easily refuted. Homeopathy works with animals, and with babies, and with plants, who have no expectation that a remedy is going to make them better, and do not usually know they are being treated. More important is to remember that each 'anecdote', rejected with such cavalier disregard, is an individual's testimony, a person who was sick and has become well after treatment. By denying such personal experience, NHS-ConMed destroys its case for being rational, a treatment based on science. It helps us see NHS-ConMed for what it is - an establishment committed to its medical monopoly, its vested interests, and privileged position. It is not remotely concerned with science, or indeed committed to medical treatment that is effective and safe. Instead it insists on hiding behind a 'scientific method' that requires 'randomised double-blind trials' to 'prove' something that is demonstrable through simple observation and personal experience. Traditional medicine has not survived because of 'scientific' proof. It has survived because people know by experience that it works. It has been proven to work on countless occasions by countless numbers of sick people through countless ages. The Dangers of Suppressing of IllnessYet NHS-ConMed's impact is worse than neglecting the natural laws of healing. In Samuel Hahnemann’s book 'Chronic Diseases', published in 1828-1830, he stated that if you attempt to suppress acute disease, chronic disease will result. He discovered that even when an illness appears to be 'successfully' suppressed by allopathic drugs, the illness (the dis-ease) remains within the body, and is merely biding its time to return. Indeed, he said that it often returns in a worse, or more virulent form. So homeopathy understands quite clearly that the suppression of the symptoms of illness will produce more illness, and that often these illnesses will often be deeper, and more life-threatening than before. Homeopathy predicts clearly that more illness, and new illnesses will result from the NHS-ConMed’s drug culture. It tells us that where there is suppression we should expect more chronic disease. The massive increase in chronic disease during the 20th century was therefore foreseeable, and a direct consequence of the suppressive nature of NHS-ConMed treatment. The incidence of chronic disease has increased in line with the progressive suppression of acute illnesses by vaccinations and drugs, particularly since 1948. So whilst NHS-ConMed can temporarily 'kill' pain, germs, bacteria, and viruses, et al, in the end a price has to be paid for this suppression. A century of increased NHS-ConMed drug taking means we are now paying with more chronic sickness than has ever been known before. NHS-ConMed Drugs - designed to suppress illnessNHS-ConMed drugs are not designed to cure illness, they are designed to suppress its symptoms. Look at how modern drugs are described - 'anti-', or 'killers', or 'blockers'. The drugs do just that - they fight against the body. They operate in a direction diametrically opposed to the one the body wants, and needs to take to heal itself. NHS-ConMed always uses the language of warfare - medicine is a fight, a battle - it declares open warfare on the body! Their drugs are named accordingly:
NHS-ConMed drugs are designed to respond to what can be seen happening in the body, and by doing so they interfere directly, and on purpose, with the normal functioning of the body:
NHS-ConMed does not deny what it does. There are many media articles that describes the allopathic treatment of illness. For instance, an Observer article “Cancer hope as vaccine trials start” published on 27th August 2006 started that “Doctors aim to save thousands of lives by forcing the body’s immune system to destroy tumours”. (My emphasis), What needs to be understand is that dealing with any illness in this way further unbalances the climate in which the body lives, and prevents it from making itself better. The temporary effect of NHS-ConMed drugsMoreover, the warfare conducted by NHS-ConMed uses 'weapons' that have only a time-limited effect. In most cases the 'drug' effect soon wears off. For example, pain killers will deaden pain for a few hours, perhaps longer - but soon more have to be taken, particularly in dealing with chronic illness. This temporary 'fix' can be important to people, especially when in the modern world they feel they have to keep going, and cannot afford to do what the body is telling them to do - to slow down, to relax and give the body time to recover. Indeed, NHS-ConMed is popular because it can give people an instant but temporary fix. The problem is that we have been told that this is 'the answer' to illness when in fact it is no answer at all. Indeed, it can be the route to more serious chronic illness and disease:
There are three main outcomes of the temporary effects of taking NHS-ConMed drugs over a long period of time:
NHS-ConMed: Can it ever work?It is time to question the common, almost universal assumption that NHS-ConMed is capable of delivering health. Its claim to provide effective medical treatment needs to be examined. It may be difficult for people to grasp that NHS-ConMed will never work. We can see the unbelievable scope of the knowledge science has developed about the way the human body works. We observe the amazing ability of medical tests to show us what is happening within the human body. We see the brilliance of surgeons performing operations that would have been quite impossible only a few years ago. And we assume that with all this knowledge and skill they are able to make us better. The problem is that even with all this knowledge, understanding and skill, NHS-ConMed has no understanding of what makes the sick human body better. It has abandoned the insights that traditional medicine has known for centuries, and by rubbishing these therapies, it has condemned itself to ongoing and observable failure. NHS-ConMed will never work because it does not comply with the essential laws of nature and health. The promises of NHS-ConMed have never been realised, and traditional medicine can inform us why this is so. There are no magic bullets waiting to be discovered, now, or in the future. It will only ever be able to give us short, temporary respite from illness. It will be useful in emergencies, in an immediate crisis, or in extremis. But little more. So the failure of the NHS is not explained by arguments based on a 'lack of resources', or 'poor management'. It arises from the total commitment the NHS has given to ConMed, and to the drugs that have been ineffectual at best, and lethal at worst. If the NHS is ever to improve the nation’s health it must seek a divorce from its partner of 60 years, and look to traditional therapies that can demonstrate they can deliver effective and safe medical treatment.
***************************************************************************** *****************************************************************************
|
Word of the Day
Word of the Day
provided by The Free Dictionary
|