At a recent conference I was delighted to join a group going out for dinner. As always the discussions going around the table of some dozen biological medicine doctors were excited, at times heated and always interesting. At one point I grumbled (I thought quietly) about a lecturer of that day telling us how he was personally responsible for bringing Biological Medicine to North America and in the process not being respectful of the long history of the field here. As I mumbled away (under my breath I thought) I was challenged by one of the younger docs.
“Why do we need to know the history? And, why should I be interested in the politics? Just because you don’t think Dr. X is doing it your way doesn’t mean it’s wrong – right?”
Well that’s a lot of questions and a lot of rightly deserved challenge. I mumbled a few answers and the discussion was picked up by Dr. Dhanani and a few others as we ate and talked and laughed. But I’ve been thinking about those questions for awhile now, and I still truly believe that it is important to know and remember the history of this field – not only in North America but in Germany where many of these methods originated.
First, why do we need to know the history? Well there is the old saying about not knowing your history condemns you to repeat it. And I see that happening all the time. We see all kinds of devices coming onto the market that claim, for example to do EAV testing. Do we all remember what “EAV” stands for? Most of us remember about Dr. Voll and his development of an electronic version of measuring the acupuncture points. But when all these device copies started appearing on the US market, somehow they never worked the same. Why? Because they didn’t bother to check the history of the method in Germany where it was developed and the technical parameters of the devices were different. But if the devices were different why were they continuing to use EAV as their reference? And, why did they stop giving credit to Dr. Voll and his colleagues? This scenario is only one example.
It was scenarios like this why the Institute stepped in and insisted that if a device was going to claim to do EAV it had to meet those same technical parameters so that our measurements would work the same as those in Germany. With respect to that history of EAV, it was at this point when we started to see a change in the acronyms to things like EDS (electro-dermal screening) and so on. When new methods and technology are being developed based on such historical models let us remember to give credit where credit is due, and own up to the changes and developments made separately.
And then, why should we be interested in the politics? Since I have been involved in this field for more than a few years, the politics are a lot of fun for me personally. I can remember when Med-Tronik first opened their doors, and when Dr. Schimmel first developed and talked about VEGA. I remember the struggles that the various companies and researchers have faced both in Germany and here in North America.
Today when I see a company claiming to have initiated a new method or technique, I can usually see that the engineer Mr. X used to work for company Y and is now doing this on their own or in conjunction with company Z. “So what?” you are asking.
As has been the tradition and mission of OIRF over these past many years, we must maintain respect for the innovations of the past. It is only with an understanding of the reasons why there has been so much change (i.e., Mr. X was a disgruntled employee and sought a way to make money on the technology he learned at Y, or new ideas were unwelcome at Y and he sought another company to support his research, or . . .).
In many ways it’s like a mystery story – first you look at the family (people) involved and then follow the money to find out “who dunnit”. But it’s always linked to the history. Without an understanding of the history you cannot see or differentiate what is the politics of today, what are true innovations or what is trash.
And then back to the question of “why does this matter?” When you as practitioners hear about a method, or technique or device, why do you need to know the history? Quite frankly it makes the difference between wasting your hard earned dollars on junk that is trying to re-invent the wheel under their own banner, or finding that gem that will change the nature of your practice forever.
Over the years OIRF has diligently worked to ensure that you are hearing about the methods or techniques that work – that do the job that is claimed for them. As a non-profit (non-commercial) entity our mission and emphasis is to put the device or technique into your practice that will do your job.
When I hear questions from our members like “I know you don’t like VEGA, but it works great in my practice and I want a device that includes that technique.” Well, clearly there is a missing bit of history and politics here – and I’m not going off on that tangent again. Suffice it to say that there are reasons we no longer recommend dealing with the VEGA (or WEGAMED) Company itself. But the method is very effective, viable and efficient and we support our members using this method to the best of our ability.
I know that sometimes history and “the politics” are boring and seem to be a waste of time. So please forgive my little jaunts down memory lane. As you listen or read my comments, we ask you to help us to respect the innovators, researchers and clinicians of the past while we move into the exciting future of Biological Medicine.
s/Carolyn
Carolyn L. Winsor-Sturm,
Managing Director
An Exclusive Commentary for Members
From THE BRIDGE Newsletter of OIRF
Published April 2012
© Copyright 2012, Occidental Institute, BC Canada
At a recent conference I was delighted to join a group going out for dinner. As always the discussions going around the table of some dozen biological medicine doctors were excited, at times heated and always interesting. At one point I grumbled (I thought quietly) about a lecturer of that day telling us how he was personally responsible for bringing Biological Medicine to North America and in the process not being respectful of the long history of the field here. As I mumbled away (under my breath I thought) I was challenged by one of the younger docs.
“Why do we need to know the history? And, why should I be interested in the politics? Just because you don’t think Dr. X is doing it your way doesn’t mean it’s wrong – right?”
Well that’s a lot of questions and a lot of rightly deserved challenge. I mumbled a few answers and the discussion was picked up by Dr. Dhanani and a few others as we ate and talked and laughed. But I’ve been thinking about those questions for awhile now, and I still truly believe that it is important to know and remember the history of this field – not only in North America but in Germany where many of these methods originated.
First, why do we need to know the history? Well there is the old saying about not knowing your history condemns you to repeat it. And I see that happening all the time. We see all kinds of devices coming onto the market that claim, for example to do EAV testing. Do we all remember what “EAV” stands for? Most of us remember about Dr. Voll and his development of an electronic version of measuring the acupuncture points. But when all these device copies started appearing on the US market, somehow they never worked the same. Why? Because they didn’t bother to check the history of the method in Germany where it was developed and the technical parameters of the devices were different. But if the devices were different why were they continuing to use EAV as their reference? And, why did they stop giving credit to Dr. Voll and his colleagues? This scenario is only one example.
It was scenarios like this why the Institute stepped in and insisted that if a device was going to claim to do EAV it had to meet those same technical parameters so that our measurements would work the same as those in Germany. With respect to that history of EAV, it was at this point when we started to see a change in the acronyms to things like EDS (electro-dermal screening) and so on. When new methods and technology are being developed based on such historical models let us remember to give credit where credit is due, and own up to the changes and developments made separately.
And then, why should we be interested in the politics? Since I have been involved in this field for more than a few years, the politics are a lot of fun for me personally. I can remember when Med-Tronik first opened their doors, and when Dr. Schimmel first developed and talked about VEGA. I remember the struggles that the various companies and researchers have faced both in Germany and here in North America.
Today when I see a company claiming to have initiated a new method or technique, I can usually see that the engineer Mr. X used to work for company Y and is now doing this on their own or in conjunction with company Z. “So what?” you are asking.
As has been the tradition and mission of OIRF over these past many years, we must maintain respect for the innovations of the past. It is only with an understanding of the reasons why there has been so much change (i.e., Mr. X was a disgruntled employee and sought a way to make money on the technology he learned at Y, or new ideas were unwelcome at Y and he sought another company to support his research, or . . .).
In many ways it’s like a mystery story – first you look at the family (people) involved and then follow the money to find out “who dunnit”. But it’s always linked to the history. Without an understanding of the history you cannot see or differentiate what is the politics of today, what are true innovations or what is trash.
And then back to the question of “why does this matter?” When you as practitioners hear about a method, or technique or device, why do you need to know the history? Quite frankly it makes the difference between wasting your hard earned dollars on junk that is trying to re-invent the wheel under their own banner, or finding that gem that will change the nature of your practice forever.
Over the years OIRF has diligently worked to ensure that you are hearing about the methods or techniques that work – that do the job that is claimed for them. As a non-profit (non-commercial) entity our mission and emphasis is to put the device or technique into your practice that will do your job.
When I hear questions from our members like “I know you don’t like VEGA, but it works great in my practice and I want a device that includes that technique.” Well, clearly there is a missing bit of history and politics here – and I’m not going off on that tangent again. Suffice it to say that there are reasons we no longer recommend dealing with the VEGA (or WEGAMED) Company itself. But the method is very effective, viable and efficient and we support our members using this method to the best of our ability.
I know that sometimes history and “the politics” are boring and seem to be a waste of time. So please forgive my little jaunts down memory lane. As you listen or read my comments, we ask you to help us to respect the innovators, researchers and clinicians of the past while we move into the exciting future of Biological Medicine.
s/Carolyn
Carolyn L. Winsor-Sturm,
Managing Director
Dr. med. Reinhold Voll †
Prof. Dr. Fritz-Albert Popp †
(During one of his lectures to our tour group)
From THE BRIDGE Newsletter of OIRF
Published April 2012
© Copyright 2012, Occidental Institute, BC Canada
About the author
Carolyn L. Winsor
Carolyn’s decades-long involvement with the work of OIRF has given her the tools and skills to offer you unique and valuable insights into the ongoing developments in this always expanding field. Her Biological Medicine background includes:
Credentials
Featured News
Removing Gallstones Naturally
THERAPY TIP Submitted by: Dr. Justin Morais, Singapore Dear Friends, I found the English written version! This is a useful piece of information that [...]
Nosode and Isode Update
The Latest STAUFEN-Pharma Test Series Packs TR 192 Escherichia verotoxinbildend, Sdf. NosD4, (5 to 30), 60, 100, 200 TR 191 Bacillus thuringiensis, Sdf. [...]
Increasing the Efficiency of Allergy Cancellation Therapy
Increasing the Efficiency of Allergy Cancellation Therapy by Application of Substance Specific Frequency Ranges Approximately 20 years ago, exactly 1977, the German physician Dr. [...]
A Chronological Report of Tour #34
A special chronological report on our 2007 “Medicine Week” Group tour to Germany SUNDAY (October 28th): All of the tour participants met at our [...]
Sign-up to receive updates sent straight to your inbox