The
specific purpose of this discussion, started two months ago and continued last
month, is to stimulate change through understanding. Healthcare, to change, can no longer be 99%
dominated by one ideology. The consumers
in the healthcare industry must be the ones to demand change, and so they must
understand the other major health philosophy and why it is built around the
synergistic principle that the body heals itself. Health is the means, not the end. As it has classically been said in the
chiropractic profession, the body does not need much help to be well, just no
interference to its function; to the “doctor inside” that simply needs the
chance to work optimally.
There
are millions and counting who have experienced the freedom of this philosophical
realization, the healthy lifestyle that embraces the innate intelligence of the
human body and trusts its wisdom, respectfully demanding an active role from
each individual in eliminating destructive habits in favor of constructive
ones. In every walk of life, there is a
high value on the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, or synergy,
one of the core aspects of any peak performing system, be it in business,
politics, family units, etc. When that
same synergy for health is valued and personal responsibility for achieving it
is accepted, lives change.
Health,
if redefined around interconnectivity (the relationship of the parts to the
whole), shifts its focus to intervention or symptom treatment being the last
resort instead of the first through tenth options. Presently, holistic practices are positioned
as the Hail Mary approach after repeated traditional medical failure. Imagine if such holistic last resorts as
Upper Cervical Care – which embraces the scientific hallmarks of finding repeatable
objective patterns and correcting their structural/neurological cause (at the
foundational area where the head and neck meet to protect the master control
center of the body, the brainstem) – were near first in line to help sick
people get well, or as often or greater, to help well people stay healthy. When such imagination becomes reality, that
is when the path to true healthcare reform can begin.
If
only it were that simple. The holistic
philosophy written about here, which seeks to harness the inborn wisdom of the
body (i.e. “the doctor inside”) to its maximum capability by removing
nutritional, structural, chemical, psychological, and neurological variables,
makes all the sense in the world to those ready to learn about it, but it is
for most on the opposite pole of what they have been taught about healthcare by
a system that defines down health, focused as it is primarily on disease and
treating symptoms. Not knowing is the
enemy of progress; awareness is the cure.
The
“doctor inside” is the organizer of the coordinated functions in the human
body, one of the premier manifestations of natural law. It need not be taken at faith value[i],
as biological science provides all the evidence one could ever need to confirm
the validity of it. Those who enjoy a
glass or two of red wine, for instance, may know that its benefits are derived
from its hormone-releasing effects on the brain and from its anti-oxidant
(anti-deteriorating) properties, despite that it is also inherently full of
toxins that can harm the body. For
better or worse, the adaptative balancing act stimulated by red wine
consumption evidences the body’s inborn wisdom at work, but the people must
disconnect from the Medtrix (i.e. allow separation from the conventional,
pharmaceutically-driven mindset) long enough to accept the evidence they ask
for.
Ponder
this hypothetical comparative analysis: a person was asked to assess the
difference between an ocean and a pond and was given the statistical variance
of their respective sizes – four million gallons of water in the pond vs. 343
billion gallons of water in the ocean.
It is an enormous difference, the ocean so much greater than the pond
that it almost seems comical to compare them.
Yet, imagine that the person, when asked to conclude which was larger,
said without hesitation, “the pond,” having already made up their mind based on
past education and assumption, unwilling to see beyond them.
Proof,
then, is as much based on the belief system of the person to whom it is
presented. That examples of innate
intelligence, scientifically observed in nature and the human body, vastly
outnumber what has been learned through scientific experimentation is a valid
point only to the extent that someone is willing to accept it. Give credit where due, of course, to the
researchers who discover something like the presence of the anti-oxidant in red
wine (a pond-sized achievement), but give infinitely more credit to the “doctor
inside” that determines its use while simultaneously sorting out the toxicity
dynamic as part of its tried and true process (comparatively, the ocean).
As
the conclusion of this series approaches, understand that a philosophy is not
invalid because the masses do not readily acknowledge it any more than a
philosophy is valid because the masses do readily acknowledge it; there can be
no philosophical monopolization of healthcare for that reason. Truly, the job of the “doctor inside” remains
the same either way, to organize / adapt as best it can using what it has to
work with. The philosophical distinction
is important because the current “health” care system ignores the bigness of
the fellow within[ii]
(the “doctor inside”) in favor of its limited knowledge, repeatedly getting in
nature’s way; conversely, the other school of thought’s primary objective is to
get out of nature’s way.
