New DVDs. Click here for details.
“The problem lies not in the intentions, nor in the dedication of individuals, but as so often in the history of science, from a limitation in the prevailing paradigm or model that governs and limits thinking in any given era.”
Thomas Kuhn, PhD (physics)
Professor, Philosophy of Science
“One of the principal objects of theoretical research in any department of knowledge is to find the point of view from which the subject appears in its greatest simplicity.”
J. Willard Gibbs (1839-1903)
The essence of this latter quote of the great American chemist is that there are multitudes of ways to conduct research or to seek a solution to a problem under consideration. However, none will excel unless the essence of the subject is understood and approached by an angle that renders itself most complete and productive.
Nothing can apply better to the field of medicine where the subject of research — Man — renders such infinite components and variables among his anatomy and physiology including morphological, biochemical and energetic elements and, even more overwhelming, an unfathomed number of relationships between these.
Not surprisingly, these galaxies of targets have generated virtually endless scientific inquiries — biomedical research — and just as many therapeutic interventions in both fields of medicine, conventional and alternative. However, the facts are that all of these, on the whole, have failed to procure any substantial progress in the prevention or treatment of chronic degenerative diseases. On the contrary, never before have the populations of the developed countries been subjected to such an onslaught of crippling degenerative diseases.
Yet, instead of eliciting an in-depth analysis of the reasons for failure, both bio-medical researchers and medical practitioners have just continued on the same overall unproductive path of manipulating the body’s countless variables and components in the hope of hitting on more productive “well”. The main source of self-deception in these diggings constitutes, paradoxically enough … successes. These, in their own turn, are based on another factor that renders an infinitely fertile field for deceptions — an abundance of seemingly plausible theories which are as plentiful as the body’s variables, components and their interrelationships.
From hence, there is no shortage of ideas or targets for therapeutic and diagnostic manipulations which indeed can be plausibly connected to something within the living. However, in the absence of a proper model for their scrutiny, like the one that exists in the exact sciences, these ideas lack a hierarchical value or meaning in relation to the factors that sustain chronic diseases and are just being implemented akin to in wholesale premise: “It sounds good, let’s buy it.”
Speaking of scientific models and the emphasis on their importance in practice and research, let us resort to the epistemological phenomenon that can be referred to as “flying motorcycles”. To illustrate its essence, we will use a hypothetical experiment of subjecting a group of people, several centuries back, to a number of photos consisting, on one hand, of modern and impressive looking vehicles: a speed boat, race car and motorcycle, all in the state of being airborne and, on the other hand, an antiquated Wright Brothers-type of an airplane on the ground resembling a framed barn. If we were to question these folks which of these vehicles they would choose for their flying needs, the majority would likely prefer the glitzy-looking airborne modern machines.
The simple reason for this innocent mistake is just simply the absence of basic knowledge concerning laws of gravity, aerodynamics and related engineering — or of a sound scientific model of flight technology. It seems obvious to us, owning this basic knowledge today, that no matter how many different and impressive “bells and whistles” — spoilers, powerful engines or transmissions — are attached to a motorcycle, among these vehicles, and regardless of succeeding in a gain of a few extra feet in the air as the result, it will always remain nothing more than a flying motorcycle or just a ground-bound vehicle which is not meant to fly.
The essence of this lesson is that, even in spite of some gains, no amount of technology, resources or advancements carried within models which are handicapped in their very conceit, or unfit for flying! This is irrefutable, however impressive or notorious the efforts, products or their inventors might be. So, instead of attempting in vain to keep on advancing “flying motorcycles,” even if through formally scientific technological means — the main mental trap and source of self-deceit — one must discern this futility and simply start out by abandoning the faulty model and designing a prudent one, first.
However, for medicine, this is not such a straightforward undertaking. The main reason is that the model of practice and research is the exact offspring/duplicate of the limited “mother” models of education and training in both camps, conventional and alternative, tracked along their respective and limited paradigms. The basic pitfall is that medicine has been a virtual breakaway “separatist” state in relation to the wealth of knowledge of more fundamental exact sciences and disciplines.
As a result, it lacks their scholastic depth and multilayered structure in evaluating the subject and, therefore, inability to discern its true scientific value. The main liability of these omissions is that it deprived itself of an ability to raise its knowledge to the level where it can grasp, first and foremost, many important natural phenomena of nature described by science, and only then, how the pertinent aspects of these apply to Man and medicine. Among the many academic gaps are, also, insufficient knowledge of experimental research models of fundamental sciences whose construct renders itself naturally to more inclusive and open medical models leading to apprehension of the true causations of chronic degenerative diseases.
The truly informative diagnostic and effective therapeutic means and other factors necessary for successful treatment, likewise fall by the wayside. In lieu of this knowledge, the minds are chained to the confines of the paradigm preset tracks while the efforts are aimed just at the by-products of the proverbial domino effects present abundantly in chronic diseases and which consume unproductively enormous resources. Naturally, returning to our illustration, while a true aerodynamic model tends to aggregate a selective but correct number of means to keep advancing its flying endeavors, a crippled model piles up enormous warehouses of hardware and efforts to just keep a motorcycle in the air for seconds longer.
Not surprisingly, the warehouse approach is costly as its total bill — healthcare spending for 2007 in the U.S. — has reached an astronomical 2 trillion dollars and the healthcare budget with its perpetually rising costs is considered to be one of the most serious threats to economic stability in the U.S. How much has been accomplished for this price?
A rising number of sick with chronic and degenerative diseases exceeding 100 million people in the U.S. alone, including children (!), no cure in sight for or even a hint as to the true origin of these illnesses, mounting rates in both medicines of iatrogenicity, 50 million uninsured Americans due to skyrocketing health insurance premiums. All are the direct results of unproductive and pseudo-sophisticated medical services, on the whole, crippled models and fairly stable level of ineptness. (Refer to the Why FCT ® and What Is FCT ® pages of this website for physicians’ and patients’ testimonies on the subject.)
To reiterate the main reasons for this pitiful state of affairs: lack of consilience or the unity of knowledge, consuming overspecializations without cross-linking or converging pertinent sciences, disciplines or data, cult of specialties without strive to understand interconnected and integrated phenomena of nature which the specialties are resigned to view only through the narrow scope of their corresponding paradigms.
As one Harvard scholar expressed this Achilles’ heel in medicine and modern science in general: “It is, therefore, not surprising to find physicists who do not know what a gene is, and biologists who guess that string theory has something to do with violins. Grants and honors are given in science for discoveries (of parts), not for scholarship and wisdom.”
Alternative field, due to the diversity of approaches and their ability to interact with higher number of the bodily components and, also, addressing negative lifestyle does enjoy better success rate over conventional medicine in chronic ailments of mild to moderate degree. However it ails just as much from fragmented knowledge based on which it launches and perfects its own flying motorcycles and that is why the successes are sporadic and particularly in advanced stages. The professional landscape of the field appears rather peculiar as, on the whole, it deems to enlist the two general categories of practitioners.
The first one of conventional MDs or DOs who, like myself, for personal or professional reasons have come to realize that the “king” has got no clothes and is indeed as naked as one can be. They attempt to turn to something better: less iatrogenic, more natural, effective and humane. This group, however, including this author in the past, switch the camps but in the process neglect to part with their concepts of practice, or allopathic mindsets which are basically quite linear and simplistic.
Spearheaded by the familiar and ingrained by their allopathic training philosophy with meager regard for astonishing complexity of the human body, they eagerly embrace modalities which aim to do: dilate that which is constricted, constrict that which is dilated, lower, which as cholesterol is perceived as a foe or, raise something, which as antioxidants or vitamins, deemed as “a good thing”. In other words, they become just as intellectually absorbed in countless isolated targets — domino effect — and bombard these with any means possible.
This all, in their minds, to add to bewilderment, constitutes something entirely different, “natural” and, therefore, far more progressive than the conventional way of practice. But, in reality, they carry out the same linear allopathic interventions where, instead of antibiotics, anti-inflammatory, analgesics, antidepressants, anticholesterol, antihomocystine, antihypertensive, anti-PSA, antifungal, and countless other “anti-”, they match for match with allopathic drugs their own “natural” arsenals — unphysiologic pharmaceutical doses of nutritional supplements, herbs or oxygen — or toxic elements as silver, germanium and other dubious agents or some cookbook homeopathy. When all else fails, they use drugs themselves.
Along the spirited and “innovative” path, they learn a variety of “natural” means whether it comes to pushing toxins out of the body, pumping it up with oxygen, raising the body temperature or pH, electrocuting, magnetizing, burning or destroying by whatever means some bugs or other malicious entities. Among the many potentially dangerous means they use a slew of metal chelators without a trace of awareness as to their serious side effects.
These all resemble an arsenal of some explosives specialists or operatives from the special forces. The worst of it that the true and, always, complex state of illness remains unreached and changed little, the side effects unperceived and, even, a state of improvement, if this is the case, is usually artificial as it is often being covered by the heavy treatment dopings with the ensuing state of dependency on these agents.
The good techniques and interventions are packaged “academically” into some protocols, books or manuals for such and such disease as they are presented spiritedly at various symposia or just weekender “How To” type workshops by alternative professional organizations or even “better” by the companies which manufacture products or gadgets. These all tend to project an impression of advancing medical progress. For the most part, in this author’s view, they have been advancing just a haphazard and predominantly mindless and reckless utilization of products and interventions within the crooked models of our all familiar flying motorcycles.
One of the essential components of this professional myopia lies in the fact that no matter how plausible the target of assault appears to be, the reality is that within complex systems as the living, every linear intervention is bound to trigger a complex and usually unpredictable response unless one possesses the necessary knowledge and means to anticipate, prevent, monitor and react intelligently to these responses. Living proof and the edifying illustration to this is the PDR (Physician’s Desk Reference) compendium where the pages of side effects, warnings and contraindications exceed the ones of therapeutic usage.
To say that this takes place only because these are drugs and most of the alternative interventions are exempted from the morbid and chaotic responses because they are “natural and good” would serve only one purpose — to display one’s ignorance. Likewise, administering interventions with more holistic orientation as classical homeopathy or Chinese medicine, have eluded better outcomes because the true causative factors responsible for the landscape remain obscured.
The other contingent of alternative practitioners, the non-MDs or DOs, on the other hand, such as NDs, chiropractors, non MD or DO, homeopaths or acupuncturists, herbalists, nutritionists and others down to practicing laymen, seriously lack in many aspects of important knowledge that conventional medical training does provide.
On the whole, the landscape of modern medicine is more reminiscent of numerous islands in the ocean consisting of isolated bodies of knowledge and paradigms which are separated from each other by a large body of “water” and void in pertinent knowledge from fundamental exact sciences and other relevant medical and non-medical disciplines.
One can certainly discern some pertinent data contained within the islands, but never a broad and complete picture. The inability to grasp the latter, sound model of disease and practice, only perpetuates the go around cycle whereby as the specialties feel encouraged by some positive responses within their paradigms (e.g., gains in several flying meters), they press on to accomplish the impossible — to force motorcycles and, sometimes, even refrigerators, into flying expeditions.
The milder the illness (the shorter the “flying” distance to overcome), the more reassuring these successes appear for both medicines. From hence, the “obvious” but faulty logic dictates, in graver and more resilient illnesses (necessitating sustainment of a longer “flight”) “all that needs to be accomplished is just an extra push-effort.”
The field for these is as fertile as it is limitless: a better receptor selective drug, more “natural” immune booster, stronger antioxidant or chelator, oxygenator or detoxifier, balancer, builder/rebuilder or super-vitamin formula; new homeopathic repertorizing method, new chiropractic manipulation, different acupuncture technique; bigger crystal over the head, thicker magnet under the bed; more sophisticated bio-resonance testing computer, stronger zapping device; some advanced machine analyzing one’s energy and exuding “healing waves” or some electric chair type of mechanics as “Rife machine” to “execute” germs; “quantum” something, more specializations, specialists and sub-specialists for disease entities without realizing that what is even perceived as disease is perceived, largely, as an artificial and superficial entity.
Again, all thanks to the flawed models containing some formally plausible ideas where without deeper understanding of the subject, there is inability to compare the plausibility that is behind a true flying vehicle as an airplane or space ship, on one hand, or just a piece of metal that just somehow managed to become airborne temporarily, on the other. The end result becomes more obvious once it comes to the real test — severe chronic and complex medical conditions requiring “long distance flying” — where crippled models of “flying motorcycles” begin catching up and reveal themselves vividly while hard landing becomes the rule.
However, if one possesses the necessary knowledge and is able to learn lessons from these airborne motorcycles, the far healthier and effective model can be embarked upon utilizing astonishingly simple means with staggeringly more superior and far less costly results. And this can be accomplished with preserving many elements of useful knowledge that many medical disciplines do, indeed, possess.
Further practical analysis concerning the reasons for dismal yields in medicine.
If we are to set aside medical matters for a moment and delve into a basic principle behind any problem solving process be it of engineering, science or medical nature, inescapably two of its most fundamental components, which, also, are the key parts of scientific inquiry process, will present themselves as obvious. They are:
I. The intellectual concept/construct within which one views and intends to solve the problem. This aspect by far is the most essential since any gaps in synthesis of all of the pertinent knowledge, as it relates to the subject matter, will inevitably undermine the next act, Part II.
One has to realize that, scientifically speaking, logistical odds for consistency of failures in medicine as it is practiced today in both camps far exceed the same for successes. One of the main reasons is that the paradigms either violate or fall short of adhering to salient laws which govern both functioning, dysfunctioning of and methods which address these, in the cases of complex systems as man.
Other important aspects, among many, also call for inclusion of multiple components pertained to illness into a model structure, ranking their relative hierarchy of pathophysiological importance, drawing correct interrelationships between these and, even then, using flawed diagnostic and therapeutic means will ruin the outcomes. Therefore, in the absence of all of these factors being effectively integrated into one sound system, robust and consistent outcomes are being precluded and become a mathematical impossibility.
There are some schematic representations below to highlight the distinction between a far more complete and integrated model, on the one hand, and one limited with narrow goal(s) in mind, on the other.
It is abundantly transparent from these simple illustrations how much important knowledge and factors (all elaborated in detail in FCT® curriculum) pertained to disease and its management become cut off by the paradigm “slicers.” So, in a nutshell, that is how flying motorcycles become developed and saddled.
Not surprisingly, speaking of the odds, the Office of Technology Assessment under the U.S. Senate has established that a meager 10-15% of all medical interventions deems to be effective or safe.
II. The practical means that one chooses to achieve the set objectives with.
The higher and the more challenging the problem is in its complexity, the more flawless I and II ought to be in order to succeed. From hence many professionals, in and outside of medicine, practice their respective fields, yet not everyone’s approach reaches extraordinary heights.
What makes this system and its curriculum stand out among others?
There are three major conceptual flaws which, on the whole, plague the entire field of medical specialties, conventional and alternative alike that this curriculum addresses.
1. Component I is incomplete and for several main reasons:
(a) An inquiry has failed in exploring the subject in a vertical direction as it perceives the subject mainly through only the readily accessible dimensions, let it be body chemistry (conventional pharmaceuticals, herbal, nutritional/orthomolecular medicine, and related laboratory testing), craniosacral/musculoskeletal system (osteopathy, chiropractic) or other. The deeper and more fundamental aspects of man’s physiology – energetic domains, as established by physics – have been left out.
(b) An inquiry did proceed in a vertical direction (homeopathy, Chinese medicine, mind-body medicine, radionics, Reiki, etc.) by exploring energetic domain, but has failed to cover sufficiently a horizontal plane. Namely, many important issues pertaining to faulty lifestyle, including nutrition, harmful environment, presence of infectious and toxicological agents in the body and many others have remained unexplored. Likewise, important knowledge from conventional medicine has not been accessed.
(c) An inquiry examined the subject in both dimensions but failed to network and integrate effectively the emerging data.
(d) The issue was approached through unessential or data of low hierarchy in relation to a problem (disease), or data was addressed in the wrong order of priority.
(e) The most common: (a), (b), (c) and (d) are the case.
The end result? Erroneous framework of what constitutes disease as it is being viewed and shaped subjectively according to conceptual constraints of a particular specialty/paradigm. Consequently and commonly, what has been left out from pathogenesis of disease quite often is more important than what the paradigm has picked to focus on. From here, the “computer virus” has been set on course and continues circulating within a flawed model and its practice.
2. Diagnostic and therapeutic means or aspect II — implementation in daily practice.
It is only logical that the defective models give rise to limited practical means which serve to primarily fulfill the objectives of a paradigm instead of the actual problem — illness. It does not mean that such an intervention is necessarily void of value, but most of the time within the contents of the extremely complex system as human body and, particularly, in a multifactorial state of illness, this alone is far from sufficient. As an illustration to this tenet, let us consider the makings of another complex system as an air space vehicle.
It is obvious that its constructors must take into account knowledge from numerous and diverse sciences and disciplines pertained to the multitudes of the space vehicle components and their collective functioning. Here, a mere validity in design of some of the components cannot override or conflict with the same of any other, or malfunction and even accidents will take place. In medicine, quite to the contrary, interventions are based only on the rules within the confines of a given paradigm and violation or disregard of other pertinent aspects of the body in a state of illness, practically is the rule.
If in the former example such errors become fairly obvious in the way of space machines falling down from the skies, in medicine everyone has gotten used to the fact that the sick just need more pills and interventions following the good treatments. Not surprisingly, diagnostic and therapeutic modalities as Bio-resonance testing and homeopathy, respectively, which in spite of operating on the most fundamental energetic domains of homeostasis, have been unable to realize their potential because of being based on merely fragmented concepts.
The fact also is that most of the time haphazard crossovers or combinations of the diagnostic and therapeutic modalities are being used with little regard to the left out fundamental knowledge and complexities which belong to aspect I.
3. Most common: Both I and II are incorrect or incomplete.
These are the main reasons why, as the problem becomes more challenging — sicker patients — stretching the limits of a paradigm, its capacity becomes readily exhausted and therapeutic failures follow. Furthermore, the serious gaps within Aspects I and II undermine another vital component from playing a crucial role in professional growth of health providers: ability to critically analyze and learn valuable lessons from failures, that, again, contrary to how exact sciences operate and evolve.
Instead, upon their encounter, the camps turn to all familiar, endless and senseless acquisitions or development of already mentioned, new pills, machines, techniques and methods, all based on some casual relationship between these and numerous bodily components.
These connections may even become documented in a lab or a qualified study — formal validation for “scientifically proven.” However, these studies are usually set with narrow goals in mind — to satisfy the criteria of a study by merely proving a statistical superiority of an intervention over a placebo or that a casual connection between elements tested does exist, which, at the end, leads to very little, if any, overall progress.
However, entering the battlefield of the real study, daily practice, and its encounter with such complex, diverse, and dynamic biological systems as human beings — patients with their own individual sets of pathogenic factors responsible for their own disease — pills-machines-techniques hit a proverbial wall or, at best, display some “flip-flop” responses as side-effects creep up and, not surprisingly, worse diseases emerge over time.
The best example of this is conventional medicine because no other medical industry has invested such a staggering amount of resources, trillions of dollars over decades, and yet, at the end, has enjoyed such a dismal productivity in the course of this misguided experiment.
Here, however, a necessary correction is due. As much as conventional medicine, and justly so, has been rebuked by its critics for its preoccupation with the reductionistic approach that has led to dismal yields and high iatrogenicity, so much one has to be cautious of not throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water. Yes, there is always a hierarchy within the body of knowledge and emerging scientific facts, however, there is nothing wrong, per se, with knowledge and knowing.
The problem, to emphasize this again is the chosen model within which body of knowledge is being examined, extracted and utilized in practice. For the record, and as a sobering fact, all alternative approaches are doomed to failure in the treatment of serious illnesses and conditions without incorporating a great deal of pertinent knowledge from conventional medicine, among other important aspects, into their practice. Strictly speaking, every alternative specialty suffers conceptually from the same flaws that conventional reductionism even if it emphasizes holistic properties as classical homeopathy or Chinese medicine, as long as their models remain split and tunneled in relation to man’s complexity and the numerous essential pathogenic factors which cause and sustain his individual illness.
And as much as the approach may carry something of essence in terms of its epistemiology and related methods, if it fails to properly address the aforementioned concepts, I and II, it is doomed on just busy work and defeat. Keep in mind the testimony of Wayne Jonas, MD, the first Director of the Office of Alternative Medicine at the National Institute of Health who stated that as the office director, he used to receive claims of thousands of discoveries concerning great cures for all kinds of illnesses, including cancer. Virtually all of these turned out to be illusions.
The facts are that the great majority of alternative practitioners, due to their open-mindedness, utilize these “discoveries” and products in their practices. However, an obvious truth is that openness of an informed mind is far superior and safer, too, vs. the ill-informed one.
The status quo of the latter is practically assured by the current state of medical education and training, both conventional and alternative, as each specialty cultivates, in essence, its own version of a flying motorcycle. As a result, there is no sound model or reference scale to sort out impressive looking fool’s gold in medicine from the real one. No wonder that some prominent scholars from the elite medical institutions commented in this respect that, in essence, we have fragmented specialties instead of integrated knowledge.
The great Einstein has put it quite blatantly: “A pile of facts does not necessarily constitute good science”. Medicine is full of these piles being continually generated without the guidance of a sound model. At the end, the very presence of so many different medical approaches today is the best evidence of their individual inadequacy.
Summing up this discussion, at the present time, the field of medicine, on the whole, is void of a sound model for its practice and, consequently, has failed to provide the world’s population with adequate quality of medical care in the treatment and prevention of chronic and degenerative diseases.
The main reason for this is the compartmentalization of knowledge which has failed to be integrated into a sound working medical model. As the result, inadequately trained practitioners, misfocused bio-medical research and, not the least of it, astronomical monetary rewards reaped for retailing medical goods as an incentive for staying the failed course. These deficiencies are being fully addressed in the course of the FCT curriculum where, in a matter of hours, the students will have an eye-opening experience and an opportunity to fully comprehend and appreciate the serious missing gaps in salient knowledge.
The curriculum fills in and addresses the aforementioned gaps in medical education and introduces a truly novel, safe, low-cost and staggeringly effective system to the practice of medicine. It is based on several cardinal pillars: synthesis of a great deal of pertinent multidisciplinary knowledge and novel means to carry this out in practice.
This system has and will undoubtedly continue to produce outstanding results in the hands of dedicated and capable students.