The core principle in the medical jurisdiction is the law of similars, or like cures like. When correctly applied, a given symptom will follow the direction of cure, meaning that it moves from a more vital organ or system to one of lesser importance. I like Dr. Hahnemann’s language to describe this, when he refers to organs which have “greater or lesser nobility”.

The metaphor is apt, as our body functions as a kingdom, and not as a democracy. In a kingdom, there are clearly some figures more important than others, with the king and queen sitting at the centre of importance, and the peasants being the least important. Our heart and brain are like the king and queen, in this sense, and the body always works to keep disease as far from these organs as possible. A disease appearing on the skin is actually the sign of a relative state of health, meaning that there are sufficient healthy defences to keep it from penetrating to the more important (noble) organs.

The typical approach to this skin disease in conventional medicine, unfortunately, is suppressive, such as in the use of cortisone cream, which appears to do good (make the rash disappear), but which actually drives the disease into a deeper, more vital organ. The classic example is to find that such a suppressed rash actually comes back as asthma (the lungs having more nobility than the skin), which the doctor unwisely prescribes a cortisone puffer for, thus further driving the disease to an even deeper organ, say the kidneys in the form of an infection.

The correct approach to treatment, in contrast, needs to be curative rather than suppressive, and in my Heilkunst office I’ll be watching for this pattern to systematically reverse itself. Using the example above, the first order of business is to treat the kidney infection, and by the proper direction of cure, it will reverse direction and move back into the asthma conditions of the lungs. The following treatment of the lungs in addition to removing the iatrogenic effect of the cortisone puffer will reverse the condition one more step back to the skin, where it can finally be treated correctly, and truly eliminated for good.

The nature of chronic illness, in general, when left to its own devices follows this same path of deepening — that is, without correct medical intervention, all chronic disease is trying to burrow its way deeper and deeper into our more noble organs over time, which we can witness over the course of a single lifetime, or from one generation to the next in terms of inherited disease patterns (such as the chronic miasms).

When it comes to your health, it is a good idea to leave behind your modern ideas of democracy, and respect the direction of cure (eschewing the direction of suppression), choosing medicine and therapeutics which push things out, rather than in. The disappearance of a symptom isn’t necessarily something to celebrate, if you’re not sure which principle was applied, and which direction it went in. I’ve often seen “health conscious” individuals even suppress their deeper tendency to chronic illness using mega doses of vitamins and supplements. They may appear “healthy”, but it can often be a very shiny veneer covering over deeply suppressed layers of illness. This is also the reason why many cancers “come back” after conventional treatment of chemotherapy or radiation, as those modalities push the root of the disease deeper, while making the more superficial tumor (temporarily) disappear. This reference to the principle and direction of cure should be the gold standard for every modality of treatment. Any modality, even using natural means, which makes symptoms disappear this way (through suppression) is also ‘allopathic’. Principles should always precede the specifics of how a modality is conducted.

I used the word cloud generator at the Wordle website this morning with playful curiosity, and discovered an opportunity to blog about a few of the key words about the scientific framework and thought forms behind Heilkunst. The word cloud above was generated from some of my most recent blog posts, and, in no particular order, here are some thumb-nail definitions of the words which most grab my attention:

• Remedy : We spend much of our lives actively seeking “remedies” for all of the problems we encounter in our life, and our thinking about health is no different. “Do you have a remedy for <fill in the blank>?” is certainly one of the top 3 questions I’m asked about my practice. The critical difference about the “remedies” of Heilkunst, is that while they do generally “solve” all kinds of problems, the key is in exactly how these remedies do what they do — rather than just being happy with having made a symptom “disappear”, the whole method is designed around making symptoms disappear in a way which is permanent, and which improves the general state of health of the patient in the process. This is in contrast to the vast array of drugs and modalities which can make a symptom disappear, but often at the cost of the underlying state of health.
• State : To expand on the previous word, it is not just a symptom coming or going that commands the primary focus in Heilkunst, but rather on the underlying state of mind and which direction it is evolving or devolving. The working of our entire mind and body is governed by a particular state of mind, and whether it is one of health or one of disease. Dr. Hahnemann contrasted the concept of state with that of condition, which is where we usually tend to unproductively focus our attention — arthritis, bronchitis, migraines, and so on, are examples of conditions, but none of which will be linked back to the exact same state or states from one suffer of these conditions to the next.
• The Feeling : I’ve certainly discussed various aspects of our treatment in terms of treating the time line of the patient, including emotional shocks and traumas. The term the feeling, however, is not limited to the emotions that the patient experienced in the past or present, but has a much deeper, aesthetic meaning, and we use it in terms of understanding the unique signature of each disease. The feeling refers to the unique, objective feeling which is identifiable with each state of disease, and not to any of the subjective feelings which may be felt in the patient or the practitioner in discussing an issue.
• Life : Another unique aspect in Heilkunst as a medical science is its approach to healthcare which is fundamentally based on life, and living processes – contrast this, for example, with the teachings of physiology and pathology in the Allopathic system, which are based, respectively, on studying corpses, and on studying pathological disease states, and extrapolating them into the realm of life. The baseline, for example, of Dr. hahnemann’s methodology of provings, is health, as they are conducted on healthy individuals, who are observed as they illustrate deviations away from this healthy baseline when testing the effects of a medicinal substance. The system of testing drugs, by contrast, is conducted on groups of unhealthy people, and so the baseline of health is confounded. The definition of “success”, therefore, in Heilkunst is relative to a pure baseline of life and health, rather than a murky, relativistic, and statistical deviation from “disease”.

]]> http://arcanum.ca/2012/04/22/a-play-on-words/feed/ 0 http://arcanum.ca/2012/02/24/get-rid-of-your-glasses-naturally/ http://arcanum.ca/2012/02/24/get-rid-of-your-glasses-naturally/#comments Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:22:42 +0000 jkorentayer http://arcanum.ca/?p=1504 When I refer to “Allopathic” medicine, people often assume that this term only applies to the prescription of pharmaceutical drugs, but not to any non-drug approaches, such as surgery. “Allopathy” has a much broader meaning than this, and indicates a more general conceptual approach to health which doesn’t understand or treat the cause of a disease, and generally makes things worse in the process of its treatment.

The field of Optometry is almost completely overrun with this Allopathic mindset, and the common practice of continuously prescribing corrective lenses of greater and greater strength creates a downward spiral for the eye health of most patients. This comes from the same general assumption in Allopathic practices that illness and symptoms of all kinds are an inevitable result of aging, and our best response is to apply medicine or other therapeutics in correspondingly greater doses over time.

The facts turn out to be different from this assumption. Many thousands of patients have actually been able to improve their vision, and some even get rid of their corrective lenses entirely. The Bates method (invented by Dr. William Bates) is simply a collection of exercises for the muscles in and around the eyes in order to progressively strengthen, and therefore improve the vision. Eyesight, after all, is largely a function of musculature — when we are focussed on the words in a book in our hands, and then shift our gaze to something farther away, the change in focus is accomplished by our eyes through muscle movements.

Due to our increasing focus on up close work (all of the work people do now on computers, for example, such as reading this blog!), our vision becomes more and more rigid, and less adaptable to re-focussing at different perspectives. The normal solution of progressively greater strengths of corrective lenses only reinforces the underlying problem, and contributes to its worsening over time.

The practices of the Bates method, by contrast, encourage a much more varied usage of the eyes, by using exercises that utilize all the different combinations of muscle groups within the eye, by looking at different horizons, angles, and so on. It also includes other aspects of encouraging relaxation in the eyes, to give them a break from the constant strain they are often put under. “Sunning” and “palming” are two staple exercises in this realm, as well.

Some optometrists are willing to work with the patient in parallel to these exercises, in order to prescribe them progressively lower prescriptions over time, as their eyes are strengthened. It is definitely worth searching around to find an optometrist who is willing to work with you on this goal.

Aside from the basic exercises in the Bates method (which are plenty effective in their own right), I also assist patients with homeopathic remedies as well. There are some homeopathic remedies which are useful for the physical aspects of these exercises, such as Ruta Graveolens, which is very effective for releasing habitual straining in the eyes, particular for those who do a lot of up close work.

There are also the whole range of the emotional remedies available, as patients find that their progressive work on eye improvement will be tied up with any number of layers of emotional conflicts or other shocks or traumas that are being energetically stored in their ocular segment. Think of all that we may desire not “to see” when faced with emotional traumas.

A good dose of healthy nutrition and lifestyle are always good complements to any health endeavor, and even the more specific use of certain herbs and supplements formulated to nourish the eye may also be used.

I have been working on my own vision with these methods, and have already had my relatively strong prescription drop a few points. I’ll let you know when I get rid of my lenses completely!

The word “I” is the only word in the English language which cannot be learned by direct example — for example, if I am teaching a child to say “I am going to the store”, the correct response is to say “You are going to the store”, and vice versa. One of the classic indications of autism is an inability to correctly make such reversals, as the healthy birth of the ontic organization has been impaired.

The details of this pronoun reversal are simply an expression of the deeper function of the ontic organization, which is the source of our self-consciousness, and identity as a separate entity. It is what provides the human kingdom with a unique waking consciousness, which is not posessed by any of the other three kingdoms of nature (mineral, plant, and animal). This is why, incidentally, for the treatment of any domestic animal, the health issues of the human owner need to be addressed in conjunction, as the pet will be drawing on the ontic function of their master.

Another counter-example to help us understand the healthy function of the ontic organization is the disease of cancer. Of course, there are very significant physical aspects of treating an active case of cancer, but here I am talking about the state of mind which is at the root of the disease (as every disease is built on a unique state of mind). In the disease of cancer, the state of mind is one which eclipses the healthy function of the ontic, or the sense of self, and the eventual physical symptoms are a reflection of this unclear definition of the self, and its corresponding weak immune system. In both the prevention of cancer, as well as its active reversal, a good prognosis will always include a palpable shift in this underlying sense of self, and healthy emotional boundaries (the emotional immune system, so to speak).

This is also the key to a truly “early” diagnosis for prevention of cancer — the well-trained Heilkunst physician can diagnose and treat at this level long before any tumour has emerged out of this deeper cancer state of mind. The so-called “early” detection of tumours within the conventional system is actually quite a late stage in the game. This is one of many reasons that having an annual “physical” with the conventional MD is not nearly enough for attaining true health at the level of all four of our bodies.

The topic of cancer is quite broad, and there are many areas to discuss from a Heilkunst perspective. In this blog post, I would like to make a few comments about this presentation made at a TEDMED conference about a new cancer treatment protocol, ‘Tumor Treating Fields”.

As I wrote recently, there is an urgent need for a truly integrative system of medicine that intelligently brings different health care modalities together to work towards commonly defined goals of health which are focussed on the patient rather than on winning the ‘turf wars’ between the different modalities (with the biggest war occurring between conventional and alternative medicines).

Conventional medicine claims a monopoly over cancer diagnosis and treatment, and this is an unfortunate barrier to establishing a more successful system for patient survival and quality of life. The type of discovery presented in this TEDMED talk is quite promising, at least along the lines of providing a better quality of life for patients (as it creates little to no side effects), but needs to be further contextualized within a broader understanding of what cancer is in the first place.

This new method of ‘Tumor Treating Fields’ is non-invasive (in sharp contrast to the big three modalities of surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy), and without side effects. This point alone is a great achievement in terms of the “miracles” of modern medical technologies, and is worthy of further development and integration into health care of cancer patients.

This is where this, and any, cancer treatment modalities (both conventional and alternative), need to be further understood within the context of the principles of Heilkunst in general, and its understanding of cancer in particular. The key point to start with, is that the conventional diagnosis of ‘cancer’ is only referring to the existence of cancer cells or tumors. The cancer cell or tumor is not the cancer disease, but rather only the manifestation of it. This is why the story in cancer that is heard so often is of cancer returning some time after the apparently successful treatment with whichever modality. The conventional definition of whether cancer was cured, or not, is reduced to a statistical definition of “no recurrence within 5 years of treatment”. Statistics, while interesting, are not able to define essential issues of health, disease, or cure.

The fundamental disease of cancer is both diagnosable and treatable even in the absence of any physical manifestations of tumors within the Heilkunst framework. All diseases, including cancer, fundamentally originate in a diseased state of mind, which will result in physical symptoms developing over time. Whichever method of cancer treatment succeeds in eliminating a cancerous tumor has not succeeded in curing the root disease of cancer, until this deeper state of mind has been reverted to a healthy state of mind. I certainly endorse the exploration and use of any treatment modalities for cancer tumors, such as this new “Tumor Treating Field” technology, but only within an enlarged context of a treatment philosophy which understands this deeper structural aspect of the disease of cancer as distinct from the physical symptoms.

This is the starting point for how we help cancer patients with Heilkunst at whichever level they would like — whether they are choosing to use Heilkunst in conjunction with conventional treatments, or if they have decided that they only wish to use natural medicine, the same underlying philosophy of treating the deeper structure of cancer is applied towards the goal of cure. Quality of life and longevity are some of the highest goals to strive for in cancer treatment, and this deeper structural understanding of the disease of cancer is the surest context to do this in, regardless of which modalities are chosen by an individual cancer patient.

Both reactions fall short of the ideal Hahnemann upheld when he developed homeopathy as the foundation of rational medicine. He was critical of close-minded dogmatism as much as he abhorred “blind empiricism.” Originally trained as a chemist, Hahnemann recognized that his use of “dynamized” medicine carried the health sciences beyond the explanatory force of chemistry. Rather than discount his findings or discredit the laws of chemistry, however, he focused his criticism on the over-extension of chemistry, which he found to have “taken upon itself to disclose a source at which the general therapeutic properties of drugs are to be ascertained.”[i] Delimiting the explanatory force of chemistry, he stressed that it may help find the medicinal powers of substances, but it cannot reveal anything about its functions in the human body, which is of a living nature.[ii] He recognized that, as a method originally developed to study inorganic material, chemistry was necessarily limited in its capacity to illuminate living processes.

Recently, a new field has developed in the life sciences, which reinforces Hahnemann’s delineation of chemistry, called biosemiotics. One of its central tenets is that living entities do not interact like mechanical bodies, but rather as messages. That is, living systems always exhibit certain organizational characteristics, which enable them to react to differences in their surroundings, and thus to “create” and exchange information. Without this basic difference between life and non-life, evolution as we understand it, would not be possible. In light of this observation, biosemioticians employ methods that follow the model of semiotics – - the study of signs, symbols, and their interpretation- – rather than applying the chemistry and physics of lifeless matter to processes created by life.

As the science of signs in living systems, biosemiotics invites the medical community to reconsider the physicalist terms in which biomedical researchers have traditionally explained the efficacy of medicine. If we endeavor to not only observe (with statistical precision) but to also understand the ways in which medicine informs the operation of the living organisms with which it interacts, then our explanations must extend beyond the physical laws operative in medicine to the information they introduce to living organisms. Within the biosemiotic framework we can legitimately question whether potentized medicines alter the health of organisms by locally controlling the physical laws according to which a diseased body is operating, a consideration that brings us beyond the limitations of physical discourse and into the domain of language.

[ii] Ibid., 115.

First amendment a last priority for some docs

Dear Friend,

If you’ve ever seen an old re-run of Dr. Marcus Welby, M.D., you probably think you’re watching a depiction of medical care not just from a different time, but a different planet. The homey, personal attentions of Dr. Welby bear absolutely zero resemblance to today’s vast and faceless medical bureaucracy that shuttles patients through the system with all the TLC of a cattle drive.

There was a time when doctors like myself were saddened by the passing of this bygone era. But it appears that the current crop of docs doesn’t share my sentimentality. Case in point… some doctors are now asking patients to sign an agreement that they won’t post negative comments about their experiences online.

That’s right: it’s a gag order to keep patients from letting other patients know that a doctor’s got a crummy bedside manner.

Neurosurgeon Dr. Jeffrey Segal founded a company called Medical Justice to help doctors track and prevent online critiques from the patients. So far, about 2,000 doctors have signed on with Segal’s company.

If patients sign the agreement, they’re promising to refrain from posting any online comments referring to a given doctor’s “expertise and/or treatment.” Medical Justice then monitors the web and removes any online comments that violate the agreement.

If patients decide not to sign the waiver, Segal tells doctors to send them packing.

It’s all very 1984. It’s like agreeing to eat at a restaurant on the condition that you won’t tell anyone what the food is like. And I think it stinks.

Not long ago, I told you about a study of nearly 1000 breast cancer patients which revealed that about half of them said their doctor’s explanation of the condition, its diagnosis, and treatment options was insufficient, incomplete, or difficult to understand. If Dr. Segal’s company has its way, none of these women could pass on word of the shortcomings of these doctors to other potential patients.

In the last few years, the gap between doctors and their patients has widened considerably. It’s almost as though doctors believe that medicine itself has become larger than the people they’re seeking to treat.

Thankfully, some people are still determined to stand up for their rights. John Swapceinski created the web site RateMDs.com to give people the opportunity to anonymously rate their physicians. As you can imagine, Swapceinski has been pressured by doctors themselves and organizations like Medical Justice to remove negative comments — but he’s standing strong.

Doctors are “basically forcing the patients to choose between health care and their First Amendment rights,” Swapceinski correctly points out. “And I really find that repulsive.”

Swapceinski even intends to combat Segal’s Draconian patient waivers by listing the names of doctors requiring these gag orders on a “Wall of Shame” on the RateMDs web site.

AMA President Dr. Nancy Nielsen said that online doctor reviews “should certainly not be a patient’s sole source of information” when looking for a doctor.

Maybe not. But it’s certainly worth taking into account. And it’s certainly your right to do so.

If you’re interested in reading what other people have written about your doctor – or even in writing a review of your own – you can go online to websites like www.ratemds.com or www.angieslist.com.

Better do it now… while you still can!