I would like to start this chapter with an introduction to the medical conception, because although everyone has had medical care, they may not have seen the depths of it. The purpose of this chapter is not to analyse and explore the shortcomings of medical care, because this is a social problem that goes beyond the scope of this book. My aim is to highlight why the medical approach limits its own scope of action. I believe that all methods are good for something, first and foremost to understand our own limitations. If we want to improve through it, a change of perspective is essential, and for that we need to recognise our limitations. 

First, let's look at what happens when you go to the doctor.

1. Taking stock of symptoms. The patient describes the symptoms he/she is experiencing based on his/her own observations. The number one source of error is that the patient is not a good self-observer because no one has taught him/her to do so. They may miss some of the symptoms and mix up symptoms from different diseases. This is natural, because the patient thinks holistically, he/she is sick as a whole, not just in parts. But this is not how the doctor is conditioned. He/she groups the symptoms of the disease, assigns them for organs and examines each organ separately. This is natural on his/her part, since the body is very complex and must be analysed (divided into parts). The doctor therefore takes some of the symptoms and, on the basis of his/her experience, attributes them to a disease he/she knows, leaving the rest of the symptoms aside. This is compounded by a communication problem, as the patient does not know either the medical way of thinking or the medical language, so they can successfully misunderstand each other. The doctor knows this and tries to verify the correctness of the diagnosis by tests.
2. Tests. The 1st point is followed by manual or instrumental tests. The doctor, if he/she loves his/her profession and wants to heal conscientiously, turns towards the patient with humility, which means that he/she is intuitively attuned to and can intuit the essence of the disease on several levels, but for him/her the important is the physical plane, i.e. what alteration is present in the matter. If this is not done, the diagnosis is entirely mechanical and schematic. Deviations of the test results from the norm are a probable sign of disease. Thus, the doctor categorises the disease, which means that he/she delimits it, puts it in a box and assigns a therapy to the diagnosis based on the learned pattern.
3. Therapy. Nowadays, the therapy is basically medical or surgical. If it is drug-based, the doctor chooses a drug that relieves or eliminates the symptoms of the categorised disease. This method can be explained the best in the case of fever and pain relief, and these are the drugs that are consumed in the largest quantities. If the patient has a fever, they are given antipyretics, if they have pain, they are given painkillers. Painkillers work by preventing the pain from reaching the central nervous system and it is recognised as pain by the nerves of brain. In other words, the pain doesn't actually stop, it just doesn't get to the place where it would be conscious as pain! In the other cases it is no different in the other cases, it is just harder to explain to the layman. For example, if someone has high blood pressure, they get a vasodilator, if it is low, they get a vasoconstrictor. If you are diabetic, i.e. your body cannot use sugar, you are given drugs to help you absorb it. So, the therapy is replacing a missing function, inhibiting a function that is abnormal. But all this time there has been no mention of why the abnormal condition occurred? I didn't have a fever before, now I have a fever, I didn't have a headache before, now I have a headache, my blood pressure was fine before, now it's not, I've been able to incorporating sugar before, now I haven't. What has changed in me? If the therapy is surgical, the point still doesn't change. The surgeon fills in the missing part, removes the extra part, but does not look for or does not know the answer to the question of what caused the change. That is not even his/her job, he/she says, and that is for medical research to answer.
4. Healing. In lucky cases, the patient is cured, which is attributed to successful therapy. If not, they return to the second point and change the diagnosis, resulting in a change in therapy. So, there is misdiagnosis and mistherapy, but this is not (necessarily) medical malpractice, as the approach itself carries the potential for error. More specifically, the whole approach is wrong. But that does not mean it should be rejected. I note that our understanding of the whole material world is a chain of errors, yet we cannot discard the old approach until we have a workable new one. 

So, the disease is a consequence, and as such we have to find a cause for it, this is what society expects of us. Therefore, was aetiology found out. The theory of the causes of disease (aetiology) is practically a defence mechanisms of the medical approach, which doesn’t reveal the real cause. According to this theory, the causes of diseases are: 

1. Diseases are caused by pathogens (bacteria, viruses, parts of other living organisms, their juices, etc.). So, pathogens are our enemies and we have to fight against them.
2. Diseases are caused by inappropiate lifestyle: alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, over-nutrition, malnutrition, lack of certain substances (e.g. vitamins, micronutrients), presence of other substances (e.g. toxic substances). That is why we need to change our fixed bad habits.
3. Diseases are caused by a sedentary lifestyle, pollution, stress, other conditions.
4. Diseases are caused by age, wear and tear of the body, regeneration problems, genetic defects. 

These claims are provable, so they are true. In fact, the problem lies not in the truth of the above, but in the content of the partial truth. That is, if we take the partial truth to be the whole truth, then we are not investigating further, but dogmatising the partial truth! Why is this approach a defence mechanism? Because it deflects the disease on pathogens, people's lifestyle, environment, etc. It points out that they are responsible for the disease. But there are many exceptions. The exception confirms the rule? The medical approach places the responsibility on the limits of society's economic performance for the limitations of healing. It suggests that if material conditions were better, all diseases and all patients could be cured. But this is not the case and never will be. On the other hand, all tasks must be solved within a given social context and within given material constraints. The medical approach results in the effect as the bad housewife who runs out of kitchen money in the middle of the month and can only put greasy bread on the family table in the last few weeks. The good housewife can conjure by strictly managing the money, albeit with more modest dishes, but always with a substantial and nutritious lunch.
 

The main shortcomings of the medical approach:

1. It does not pay sufficient attention to the fact that man is not only a material body, but a unity of body, soul and spirit, i.e. the practical realisation is not holistic.
2. It examines the symptoms and the condition of the body's organs separately, and often prescribes therapy for only one organ. The organs are part of the whole organism and their function cannot be separated. The whole is always more than the sum of its parts, just as a forest is more than the sum of its trees.
3. The use of material resources is neither rational nor cost-effective. While millions are spent on improving the vital functions of incurable patients, less money is spent on those who could be effectively helped. People need to be made aware of what primary care is and what extra services are.
4. It does not research or recommend alternative and much cheaper treatments simply because their effects are not scientifically proven. Thus, human health is sacrificed on the altar of scientific superiority. In many cases, medical therapy is expensive and ineffective, and the patient is unaware of the alternative method, thus missing out on a potential opportunity for healing.
5. It does not consider and does not build on the individual's understanding of life and philosophy of life, even though it is well known that forward-looking goals are essential for recovery. 

Medical science has made huge advances in treating diseases previously thought incurable and in understanding how the whole human body works. These are achievements that it would be irresponsible to overlook or underestimate. It should be clear that medicine, with the current approach, can do no more than it does. With this approach we can reach till this. However, if we step down from the scientific pedestal and look solely at the medical oath, we find that the doctor has sworn an oath solely to cure patients and not to do it by what method. So, he/she would have to do so with all the tools available and usable, which would also prove or disprove the efficacy of alternative methods. And for those for whom the medical profession is not a profession but a business, do not fool patients into believing that they are healers, but say flatly that they are businessmen. There is nothing reprehensible in this, so at least the picture is clearing. 

In every situation, we should always consider all the available treatment options, decide based on these and choose the most appropriate option for the patient's personality, budget and illness. 

Alternative medicine is the collective name for methods that do not fall into the medical and surgical category. It is a big hat, with ingredients known and recognised by doctors too. To be clear, let us divide this large group according to their approach. 

Natural therapies are those that use the same approach as described above, but with natural tools. In other words, the approach to the disease itself does not change significantly, but they will be so-called gentle remedies that do not interfere grossly with the body's equilibrium. Take for example phytotherapy, which works in the same way as drug therapy, but with herbs. The difference is that it works only with natural substances, not with artificially produced compounds, which the biochemical mechanisms of the human body are not equipped to break down. Artificial compounds are alien to life, the body has never encountered them and therefore cannot deal with them. In the past, medicines were made from medicinal plants. Most people still believe that this is still the case. It is not. Pharmaceutical companies have moved into the production of completely synthetic medicines and there are hardly any medicines today that can be traced back to natural substances. So, the first step towards a change of attitude would be for patients to insist that they do not want to take in molecules that are foreign to their bodies. Natural therapies include all those that modify the body's functioning using the existing mechanisms of the physical body: e.g. spas, diet, cupping, therapeutic massage, etc. Most of these are generally accepted by those with a medical approach. 

Let's now look at the alternative therapies that are not generally accepted. I group them according to their likely mechanism of action.

Margaret Rhasoda-Varga
UCCM head-master
(The art of living life II. excerpt)