Three Possible Outcomes of Treatment
When it comes to medicine, or treatment modalities in general, there are only three possible outcomes regarding a given disease — curative, palliative, or suppressive. That’s it. Just 3 possibilities. Once you know this, you can look at any patient and any treatment plan, and follow its real outcomes as one of these three possibilities.
The highest goal, of course, is the first option of curing the disease. A true disease (and not an imbalance, which is different) is always cured by the natural law of similars. In principle this is always true, however in practice, the details need to be unfolded in a way which matches the uniqueness of each case. This includes considerations such as the correct dose and potency of the remedy, as well as the more complex situation of two or more diseases having become joined together. It also is dependent on the overall level of the patient’s vitality, which acts as the clean up crew after the remedy has completed its job of cure. If the debris of the disease cannot be fully swept away, then the total healing hasn’t concluded.
True diseases, which are subject to this law of cure, include a variety of categories, including true pathogenic diseases, such as bacterial or viral infections, strong shocks and traumas, including both physical and emotional impacts, as well as the highest form of disease which involves taking in a belief in place of knowledge.
If a disease is not cured, then what happens if it goes in one of the other two directions? In the case of palliation, there are a number of situations where it is the most appropriate to take, such as at end-of-life, where a greater comfort is sought for the dying patient. Also, more generally, where a treatment plan is working at curing the many layers and complex dimensions of a disease, then palliative means may be needed on an interim basis until the complete cure of the disease(s) are achieved. It is very important in this situation to be clear about the distinction between palliation and suppression.
The third case, which is the one to be avoided whenever possible, is that of suppression. There are many ways to suppress a disease, and the usual justification is that it made the symptoms disappear or decrease, yet in the process it has worsened the situation by giving the disease a stronger hold at a deeper level in the organism. Most of Western medicine works on this basis, as you can see from all of the drugs starting with ‘anti-‘ : anti-inflammatories, anti-biotics, and anti-depressants to name a few. The symptoms may go, but the disease takes stronger hold, and potentially at a deeper position in the hierarchy of organs. The unknowing patient probably doesn’t realize it at this point, but the disappearance of their symptoms does not represent an increase in their health.
You say that an imbalance is different, so how do you address an imbalance? In Traditional Chinese Medicine all diseases are a result of yin/yang imbalances. If someone has an imbalance can that be cured too with Heilkunst by destroying disease matrices?
Good question –
The key distinction here is between a “disease” and an “imbalance”, where the curative treatment of the former is through the “law of similars”, and the cure of the latter is through “the law of opposites.
To address an imbalance, conceptually speaking, means to further supply to the body what is missing (such as a nutrient deficiency, for example), or to reduce what is in excess (advising someone to exercise less often, if they are doing so too much).
We have to be careful with words, here, and realize that the “diseases” referred to in TCM would be better called “conditions”, to match what we’re saying in this way of understanding.
Thank you for the reply. I appreciate it.
So, then how does the body balance the yin/yang so to speak using heilkunst/homeopathy by destroying the causative disease?
For instance, MS, parkinsons etc have an underlying kidney/liver/spleen yin deficiency in TCM. But heilkunst doesn’t aim to balance the yin/yang and instead proceeds to destroy the causative. Is the imbalance of yin/yang due to blockages that which once removed lead to a balance?
Just curious how you see things.
Hi Shal,
Yes – that’s a very thoughtful question.
You’re already hinting at the answer yourself, but I’ll expand on it.
The key distinction to understand this topic is between the dual activities of the ‘heilen’ process – “curing” and “healing”.
The cure mostly belongs to the activity of the remedy, and the healing belongs mostly to the innate capacity of the organism.
In normal circumstances, the remedy removes the disease (the “cure”), and then the innate healing power of the organism can work to restore to balance whatever had been disturbed by the disease in the first place. We let “nature take its course” in this case.
In some circumstances, however, because of the nature of the disease, or for some other factors, the organism is not able to orchestrate a complete healing process. In this case, we need to employ therapeutic approaches which assist the innate healing power so that it may complete its task. This can even include modalities from TCM, for example, or any number of modalities that would be appropriate in the specific case.
To put it in your terms, in the normal situation (where the innate healing power is strong enough to handle the healing task on its own), the “yin/yang balance” is achieved without any additional therapeutic intervention required, once the curative action initiated by the remedy has completed.
As a side note – we have to be careful when we use condition labels such as “MS”, or “Parkinson’s” – these are only nominalistic indicators, and are actually very misleading for the process of true diagnosis and prescription. Such condition label names are essentially ‘illusions’, and to speak of how to approach their treatment already starts us off down a path upon which there isn’t actually any solid ground to stand on. This is actually a whole different question, but I wanted to at least point to it from our current context. This is a key point that the genius of Dr. Hahnemann brought out, which was the key distinction between “true” and “false” disease labels.
Regards,
Jeff Korentayer