Each individual human being in the universe with his genetic design and his psychological and physically loaded biological data is a unique being. In the mechanistic medical model, one must “only” turn the correct “screw” for a disease and already health appears in the adjusted machinery of the body. Apparently the only question is with which tool is it turned? Even if at this point sensitive areas like psyche, personality, consciousness and the like are not considered closer, it is still clear to every layman that a suitable screwdriver works better than a tool that is too large or too small. The complementary and alternative medical trends try to find an individually and optimally fitting “screwdriver”, like Homeopathy in its various forms (such as Isopathy, Nosodes and potentiated organ preparations) that has proven itself here extremely effectively as a therapeutic aid for 200 years.
Approximately 120,000 doctors in Europe practice in some sense natural medicine and with it look after approximately 110 million patients, who are usually responsible for the resulting costs themselves, because they had to find out that a non-individualized medicine cannot help them sufficiently in some important areas of their health. But greatest thanks are due to them for this, because without this “injection of capital” the health system in Germany would have broken down a long time ago.
Individuality escapes a totally statistical evaluation. This is a truism and “daily bread” for every doctor. All therapies must be adapted to the respective patient. The statement that a drug is effective in 65% of all cases is only very restricted help to the patient – additionally a multitude of other parameters must be taken into consideration. Still, one tries again and again by “scientific evaluations” to approach the individual through statistics.
Even pharmaceutical firms paid dearly during the last years and still have to, because they trusted the statisticians too much. What is helpful for one patient can kill the other one – however, how can I distinguish between them? Unfortunately this question is not pursued intensively, and instead of this, they go to a lot of effort to prove the appropriate validity of the statistics.
This statistical line of argument has given rise to miscellaneous varieties that applied here take on a “leading position”.
Until now it was standard among other things to join a summary to a quantity of (“bad”) statistics which should attain a higher validity then as new (“good”) statistics. The result of this metamorphosis is called Metastatistic. By practicing this procedure here, one simply lets the statistics which did not fit into the concept drop out of the fixed pool. They did this for so long until they achieved the desired result. The statistics are right on the one hand and the fronts in the smoldering “method war” are once more clearly recognizable.
Churchill has already made the point: “I believe only the statistics which I have faked myself.”
For 50 years the EAV practice collected predominantly patients who for the many years in which they have substantially burdened the established health system financially, still suffer from health problems. They were considered as treated and were given up by “scientific” medicine. The EAV concept of the highly individualized search for multi-causal disease causes and its appropriate therapy preferably by means of homeopathics, isopathics, nosodes and homeopathic organ preparations nevertheless leads this “worst patient to well” with astonishing and unsuspected successes.
The again and again expressed claims that the Placebo Effect – on the one hand the expectations of the patient or on the other hand that with the aid of intensive diagnostic identification and therapy with impressive technology – led to the goal [of return to health] is the height of absurdity. The tiny measuring apparatus of the EAV doctors and their archaic seeming test ampule collection with which they “fiddle about” for 1-3 hours per patient has no comparable relation to the expenditure of “scientific” medicine. Here the same patients have received in some cases weeks and months of attention and financial contributions in practices, diagnostic centers, hospitals and rehabilitation facilities without success. They were impressed with the smell of disinfectants and chemicals of all kinds. They can admire the endlessly escalating machinery from the endoscope to the magnetic resonance imaging of their own body, and how the chief doctors’ rounds are like the staging of big events and the authoritative changing appearances of the “demigods” in white, green or blue – depending on their medical specialty. A Shaman before his fire with his little bones which he is in the habit of throwing into the ashes and afterwards makes his prognosis can only be consumed with envy by so much exploitation with the whole object being for self-promotion (or other such requirements).
In the meantime, acupuncture can take photographs of the existence of their “academically” doubted meridians. In the same way, by means of crystallization images it is possible photographically to document the sequenced strength of homeopathics – hard boiled “scientists” still doubt what they see before their own eyes. Is there still help for them?
When do we finally start to do strenuous research about the really important medical connections?
Why don’t we only use statistics within the areas where in some sense they supply “usable” statements, and transport the remainder to where they belong – in the garbage pail of history?