Every practitioner for disease is confronted with a variety of questions every time he encounters a new patient. These questions only relate to the concrete treatment to a limited extent, but must be answered in advance. These questions mainly relate to the relationship between the severity of the disease, the current constitution of the patient and the assessment of the right path of a therapeutic intervention. The aim of this article is to systematise these diverse, meta-diagnostic findings and to provide therapists with criteria for improving their own treatment success by applying these criteria for therapy selection in relation to the patient’s current status before the actual therapy. A short note is allowed on the stylistic treatment in the text: The term “patient” always refers to both genders. The same applies to all terms that are not gender-neutral.
How can I orient myself?
Activation of the self-healing powers versus treatment of pronounced symptoms
Let’s look at the situation from the patient’s perspective: The starting point of such a question is always a problem of a physical or psychological nature, for the elimination of which the patient wants help or support by visiting a practice.
It makes a lot of sense to have a compass beforehand by asking specific questions on this meta-level as to whether this support should stimulate his self-healing powers or whether he needs real help for his problem situation.
If we decide in favour of this first option, then we need to know whether the patient’s problem can be overcome by the self-healing powers at all, especially if his problem arose in the first place due to the lack of these powers, or whether the self-healing powers are active in sufficient form at all.
Diseases arise from the disturbance of the homeostasis of the human body, either through spontaneous disturbance of the balance or through high continuous energetic expenditure to correct constant and thus chronic imbalance again and again.
This problem arises in the metabolism with the environment, self-induced by an unhealthy lifestyle or unintentionally by threats of a civilisational (e.g. destruction of the ecosystem) or natural (e.g. the Covid-19 pandemic) nature.
Spontaneous violent disturbances caused by infections, accidents, catastrophes, etc. certainly require supportive treatment more often, while the therapy of chronic indications should normally be more sensibly carried out by activating the self-healing powers, if the disturbance can be treated early enough.
In general, the following criterion applies: Influences on the activation of the self-healing powers should be used in the case of lighter complaints and above all prophylactically; in the case of severe disease patterns, it is advisable to recommend direct support to cope with the symptomatology.
What options are there?
Seeking the unity of opposites
opposites: allopathic-homeopathic, naturopathic-chemical, material-energetic procedures, substance-placebo.
These pairs of opposites and their meanings are overlaid by ideological dispute. However, this (i.e. health or disease) is not about belief systems or, in other words, marketing strategies for therapeutic schools, but quite pragmatically about the principle: He who heals is right. Basta.
In the debate about homoeopathy versus pharmacology, this comes up in curious blossoms, because here the homoeopaths usually assume that homoeopathy began with Mr Hahnemann, and university medicine that homoeopathy is represented exclusively by globules. Both forget that Hippocrates, on whom they still swear an oath today, wrote the paradigm of treating like with like into their agendas.
There are plenty of homeopathic medicines today in real terms that work allopathically -albeit on an energetic basis- and there are often homeopathic interventions in standard medicine. A surgical intervention is in the broadest sense a homeopathic challenge to the body (according to the philosophy of “same with same” or even better “similar with similar”!), the ultimate challenge to the self-healing forces. At the same time, supporting factors are usually used (such as antibiotics).
It can be seen that the main problem of the dispute in this directional conflict lies in the lack of paradigmatic clarity or systematics.
The same applies to the other pairs of opposites. Often – as in the case of aspirin, for example – a natural product is the starting point for chemical processing, in this specific case willow bark dissolved in acetic acid. Cough syrups and various tinctures are also produced by chemical processes.
Likewise, there is no strict exclusivity in material or energetic treatment, if we think of Einstein’s formula e=mc2, because according to it, matter and energy are indissolubly connected.
And last but not least, no operation will be successful without problems if the patient does not believe in its success.
What does this mean at the bottom line?
Therapy Individualisation versus narrow track solutions
Therapies should always be an individual combination of different procedures tailored to the disease and its triggers, because this creates synergies that increase therapeutic effectiveness.
Prophylactically, the self-healing powers should be strengthened, preferably through energetic treatment and dissolution of energetic blockages, especially when systemic treatments are involved. This also applies to mild chronic symptomatology. But there must always be a changed framework condition that allows a symptom-free condition in the first place: An alcoholic fatty liver cannot be treated effectively if the patient continues to drink alcohol.
In manifest cases of disease, supportive treatments are called for, and of course also for severe infections that already challenge the immune system. Severe chronic symptoms and organ damage necessarily induce supportive treatments. Whether this is done by natural remedies or chemically produced monopreparations depends on whether harmful, mostly toxic side effects are present with the natural preparations and therefore it is better to do without the holistic effect of plants or, on the other hand, not to overreact with the strongly intervening chemical monopreparations and thereby cause collateral damage, as happened with the unrestrained use of antibiotics and still happens in many cases today with regard to the mass destruction of the microbiome and the almost helpless production of the many resistances.
The attempt to limit harmful side effects always makes sense. The medical practitioner who practices extended medicine, i.e. treats systemically and supportively, should encourage and, if necessary, also support his patients to read the package insert in order to inform them comprehensively about the side effects and contraindications. Most of the remedies that are harmless to health come from phytotherapy.
It is certainly legitimate to try a holistic approach by taking (homeopathic?) constitutional remedies.
There is often a false awareness not only among patients but also among their practitioners, namely that energetic or homeopathic remedies have no effect if they are used incorrectly. Therefore, they do not necessarily have to be harmful. But remedies that do not work need not be taken. There is nothing that does not work, just as there is nothing that cannot be communicated (loosely based on Watzlawick).
Remedies that act on the cells such as light therapy and work on the mitochondria and cell membranes, e.g. by taking polyenylphosphatidylcholine (PPC, e.g. Memphosan as an oral variant), are generally recommended; a whole concept for follow-up treatments can then be built on these.
Conclusion
Recommendations for therapeutic practice
As a rule, do not exclude any procedures. It is best to approach the matter holistically, if possible including the social metabolism and lifestyle of your patients.
Follow the ideas and the concept behind Extended Medicine: use the achievements of the entire human family for your patients.
If patients have significant health problems and feel that way, then they should definitely see an alternative practitioner or a doctor. An alternative practitioner is only allowed to do limited things; if he is reputable, he will refer to a doctor if necessary. The same applies vice versa. Your communication with the patient should be such that you inform him about your cooperations with doctors or vice versa alternative practitioners. The broader your horizon and the more willing you are to cooperate, the more likely your patient will trust you.
Educated patients rightly avoid prophets and pied pipers who promise them exuberant prospects of success. Therefore, beware of such ideologisms and promises.
Healing also hurts. If your patient needs caressing, ask him empathically to seek it from his partners or friends. The health professional is not responsible for this.
The concentration of the naturopathic practice should be on prophylaxis. TCM with its tool of acupuncture as well as naturopathic or homeopathic approaches are excellently suited for this. This prophylaxis is important because many health problems are present in the genetic predispositions of your patients, and if you as a practitioner do not have sufficient influence on your patients, they will also get the underlying diseases.
In the case of chronic diagnostics, having only pharmaceutical products taken should be limited by you as much as possible. Make an attempt to replace or at least supplement them with natural remedies or energetic treatment.
This is actually a truism for naturopaths: Even in convalescence, non-pharmaceutical products should always be preferred.
There are also strong-acting therapies among the non-pharmaceutical remedies that can definitely be used for diseases: these include neural therapy, light therapy (acupuncture, area or blood laser) and kinesiology.
Work out a treatment concept conscientiously with your patient. The more your patient cooperates independently, the more his or her faith will support the healing process.
If the patient is not able to cooperate, he should be able to engage with his practitioner unconditionally and trustingly so that he can derive the greatest benefit from the relationship with you. Unconditional and trusting does not mean “uncritical”, the establishment of this relationship is not to be demanded per se, but can only be established by both together.
Always offer your patients a comprehensive analysis – because this is your real strength – and an overall concept instead of a singular procedure, because you are treating a concrete personality and are not in a supermarket where you are selling a commodity. The patient – and you yourself – may sell yourself like a commodity, but his body cannot.
And remember: patient participation is the key to healing. The patient is not his car that belongs in a workshop. And your practice is not a workshop.