"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 quote of the great American chemist is that there are multitudes of ways to conduct research, e.g., seeking a solution to a problem under consideration. However, none will excel unless the essence of the subject is understood and approached through an angle which 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 and unfathomed number of relationships between them. Not surprisingly these have generated virtually endless scientific inquiries which, on the whole, have failed to procure any substantial progress in conquering chronic degenerative diseases. Just to the contrary, never before have the populations of the developed countries been subjected to such an onslaught of crippling degenerative diseases.

Very briefly, what are the reasons for failure?

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 reveal themselves as obvious. They are:

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 in both conventional and alternative medicine?

There are three major conceptual flaws that this curriculum addresses which uniformly plague the entire field of medical specialties, conventional and alternative alike.

1. Component I is incomplete and for several main reasons:

The end result? Erroneous framework of what constitutes disease as it is being viewed and shaped artificially according to constrains 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 chosen to count in. From here, the "computer virus" has been set on course and resulted in a flawed model.

2.

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), therapeutic failures become all too common. Furthermore, the serious gaps within Aspects I and II undermine another vital component from playing a crucial role in professional growth of health practitioners: ability to critically analyze and learn valuable lessons from failures.

Instead, upon their encounter, they turn to all familiar, endless and just as senseless acquisitions or development of new products, machines, techniques, methods, etc. The deception with these lie in the fact that as mentioned before, human body contains endless components and one can always succeed in connecting with some of these, whether through a new drug, potion or piece of technology.

These formal connections may even become documented in a lab or a short-term study (i.e., "scientifically proven") which are usually set with a narrow goal in mind — to satisfy the criteria of a study by merely proving a formal superiority of an intervention over a placebo or that a casual connection between elements tested does exist.

However, entering the battlefield of the real study, daily practice, and its encounter with such complex, diverse, and dynamic living systems as human beings — patients with their own individual sets of pathogenic factors for their own disease &mdsh; the products/interventions begin to falter as the side-effects creep up and, not surprisingly, worse diseases, in spite of or due to the "good" interventions, emerge over time.

Speaking the language of science, the model is faulty so the results are doomed inasmuch of a degree as one cannot expect an airplane built through a flawed design to reliably maintain its flight no matter how many new and better parts one will continue to implement.

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 and we are all to learn from this misguided experiment.

Using the "airplane's" example, its performance not only has failed to become more reliable but, instead, even more "accident" prone as confirmed by official statistics concerning the enormous iatrogenicity of the interventions. If one does not edify oneself with the core concepts touched upon on this page and presented in detail in the body of the FCT^® curriculum, one will just as easily become deceived by the seemingly sophisticated innovations or training endeavors in alternative medicine.

The FCT^® curriculum fully 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 not on a new technique, product or impressive medical golden bullet but instead just on a few cardinal pillars: synthesis of a great deal of pertinent multidisciplinary knowledge and novel means to carry it out in practice.

This system has and will undoubtedly continue to produce outstanding results in the hands of dedicated and capable students.

Next: Why FCT?

HOME .:. Why FCT .:. What Is FCT .:. FCT Curriculum Training
Professional Information .:. Bio-resonance Testing Tools
Books and Media .:. Professional Services

Classical Homeopathy .:. Bio-resonance Testing

© 2008 SYY Integrated Health Systems, Ltd
37 King Street, Chappaqua, N.Y. 10514
S. Yurkovsky, MD, President
914 861-9161   fax 914 861-9160
seminar@yurkovsky.com