One size medicines and named diseases

one size fits none...

one size fits who?

One size doesn’t fit all…

There have been many studies of measles. Of mumps. Of pneumonia. Of different forms of cancers. Of Alzheimers.

However, when people are sick, there are at least two major players (if we leave out the children, grandchildren, in-laws and extended family/tribe/hamula/mishpocha…). There’s the disease, and then there’s… the patient. The host, if you will.

Bacteria frequently take up residence in all kinds of environments (gut, respiratory tract, urinary tract etc.) belonging to all kinds of people. The pathology of the disease – if a disease even arises – and the outcome does not as a rule depend only on the disease, except perhaps in major epidemics and even then there are questions. The pathology and outcome for the most part, depends on the host.

So here’s the problem. If you see illness as something separate from the human being who’s playing host, you define it, observe it, examine its different manifestations – you’re treating the disease almost as if it’s something outside the body. Treatment is not being individualized to fit the human being who’s hosting this particular bacterial/viral/fungal party. This gives rise to the development of medicines which are given to all individuals suffering from a particular disease, and predictably, not everyone responds to the medication. Not everyone gets better. Because one size doesn’t fit all.

Conventional medicine doesn’t have the medicines that would relate to an individualized disease state, as it doesn’t have the concepts required to treat in this way. The emotions, for example, play no part in a prescription of anti-biotics, anti-histamines, etc. But some people get sick as a result of an emotional trigger, some develop emotional changes alongside physical symptoms, and these changed emotion states are part of the disease picture. There are children who get a bad cold with runny nose, and who become very clingy and needy when they’re usually independent. Then there are children who, on becoming sick, become very calm and easygoing – when they are usually edgy and demanding. Parents know this. They say of their children – Horace (not his real name…) must be coming down with something, he seems very easy to please today, Hortense (not her real name…) constantly wants hugs – she must be sick, she usually won’t let me hug her…

But this is of no interest to the prescribing doctor, as within allopathy, the doctor is only interested in the symptoms relating to the named disease, the cold, flu, mumps, measles, and not to the individualization of the illness, in these cases the changes in the emotional state.

And the interesting thing is – human beings can survive quite nicely without disease. But disease relies on human hosts for its very existence and development. So which deserves more examination – the disease as an external entity, or the disease as expressed in different individuals?

And that, dear reader, is what homoeopathy is all about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.