deutsch  français  italiano  english  español  português  contact + info

Dario Läuppi Medicine and skepticism

As adolescent – at this time it wasn't clear that I'll also be professionally involved with health – I've often heard, with regard to alternative medicine, this sentence “Everything is only a question of belief.” It seemed to me a pejorative argument in the sense of “it's not worth to give further consideration to this”. At this time I didn't know that spontaneous healing really exists (called spontaneous remission in medical terms) which can be considered as miraculous recovery which is neglected by conventional medicine because it can't be explained scientifically yet. This question of faith didn't get out of my mind, something was wrong there. So I started to examine this question. It can be seen, like any problem, at least from two points of view.
 
Reasons and justifications for skepticism on the part of the patients:
● from the historic point of view there have always been medical doctors which have put (e.g. economic, religious, governmental, political, scientific) interests above the health of the patient – that foments distrust, sometimes for generations.
● actually, on individual level:
  • patients told me that a conventional medical doctor wanted to prescribe them a remedy with massive side effects and they defended themselves with the argument that they are not a disposal of special waste (because these pharmaceuticals must be disposed separately).
  • or other patients who received a medicament and threw it away without taking it, in other words, rejected radically any cooperation with the attending physician.
The skepticism of the medical doctors manifests itself so:
● already Galen of Pergamon has prescribed, to the explicit wish of the patients, remedies without being convinced of their efficiency (and which already were the most expensive then),
● there were always doctors who didn't fallow fashions of pharmacological medication (e.g. the wave of anti-fever drugs which had its peak between 1850 and 1880).
● often a remedy is prescribed with the comment: “Take this during the next three months and then come for a control examination.” This sentence includes two messages:
  • “I can't guarantee you that this pharmaceutical will actually help” (that's a correct professional attitude because one cannot make promises of healing) and
  • “I'm not really sure of the efficiency of this drug, so let's make a trial which may take a while.”
In history, the search for accurate diagnosis was always more important than the development of the best therapy: and so, despite the achieved progress in diagnostics and medical imaging technologies one is generally still not able to offer effective personalized treatments. That's also named crisis of therapeutics (= science of treatment of diseases). It would undoubtedly be much more efficient if one could stimulate the body's own regenerative capacities soon enough that later expensive and incisive interventions will not be necessary, their recovery require much bigger regenerative capacities.
 
The EAV as approach to personalized solutions
New patients are a little surprised of the procedure of a checkup and have a healthy dose of skepticism. One summarily explains the functioning, that they absolutely don't have to believe in the method, simply do that which results from the checkup and remedy testing. I like most my skeptical patients, they ask intelligent questions: first about the method itself, then general ones about medicine. That makes my consultations varied.
Then, when the patients followed the advices and their health gets better and the next routine checkup confirms it, they begin to understand the potential of the method, to formulate their own hypotheses and bring things for testing out, in other words, the EAV is an open system that also enables a transparent cooperation with the patients.
 
When one studies the EAV with its systematical and holistic logic one is a little astonished why a certain measuring point corresponds exactly to an organ or function. When one compares the diverging measuring results with one's medical knowledge and asks the patients, if they have also this or that symptom, they are amazed that one has discovered it in such a simple and quick way. Because the EAV furnishes to the professionals determining information for diagnostic and evaluating/adapting of targeted individualized therapies – the appropriated working instrument for resolving the crisis of therapeutics described above.
 
Conclusion:
The art of medicine Is a question of cooperation in the only interest of the health and integrity of the patient. Nowadays, a certain degree of skepticism is definitely healthy. Personalized treatments and counseling – inter alia considering the diverse scientific works about EAV around the globe – allow in fact also to handle the skepticism.

© Dario Läuppi (Version 07/2016) ®

 index