The more we have come to understand the body and mind’s remarkable ability to maintain balance in a world filled with noxious agents and forces that cause imbalances, the more we seem to have grown afraid as a species of the world around us. This fear drives us more strongly than ever to seek to dominate and control the world around us, exciting our urge to self-preservation against threats which may not even exist. What tends to be lost in this is the remembrance of the intelligence of design which permeates and in many ways defines the natural world.
The body is possessed of a remarkable intelligence, a seemingly unending ability to formulate and execute adaptive responses to the constantly evolving and increasingly toxic ecosystem in which we live. In my post “The Four Phases,” I argued that the majority of what we call “symptoms” are nothing other than evidence of the body seeking to protect or heal itself while in the presence of or after having been infiltrated by noxious agents, be they natural or xenobiotic. Interpreting symptoms as being something wrong might lead even the intelligent physician to to confuse the solution for the problem.
The tendency, while under the shadow of the aforementioned state of mind which is dominated by fear, is to seek to reduce or remove the symptoms, rather than support or encourage them to continue working in the direction established by an obviously intelligent design.
Whether cancers, for instance, are formed from genetic mutation (as is favored by the majority of researchers) or chromosomal disruption (as put forth by Dr. Peter Duesberg of the University of California in Berkeley), has yet to be proven. Advocates of the former tend to favor and think only of strategies which stop the mutation while proponents of the latter theory would likely be more inclined to favor interventions which would encourage the continued evolution of the fragile new species created as a result of the aneuploidy, so that it would in effect quickly and efficiently evolve itself into oblivion.
The scientists who choose to poke the box with such ideas are either crazy or they’ve been more willing than most to base their science on truth, rather than on popular opinion. These are the scientists I like to watch. They are the controversial contrarians, the “dissidents” who refuse to toe the party line and are among the few who continue to ask the difficult questions when momentum is built in a particular direction. These scientists, if they can resist the temptation to waste any energy striking back at the system that will eventually disown them (for reaction to always ends in subjection to), are the source of significant breakthroughs, particularly in areas of enquiry where progress has stalled using the popular approach.
Such scientists do not mistake theory for fact, fleeting opinion for eternal truth. They remain open-minded to solutions from other disciplines, other systems of medicine, and so on, in their quest for answers grounded in truth. These scientists maintain their integrity and stay true to an unadulterated form of scientific enquiry.
One thought I’ve had in relation to the disease of cancer is that the “principle of similars” propounded by Hippocrates, the Delphic Oracle in Greece, Paracelsus and many others later in history might be of value. Whether the body is deliberately employing the strategy that we describe as cancer to rid itself of some noxious agent or if it is the result of something random and beyond our control is yet to be established, but in either case employing a strategy similar to immunization, allergy treatments or homeopathy so that the vector established in the disease is given momentum rather than halted may provide a viable and more elegant solution than those currently employed.
Gregory Hake 
We have so much more to learn about how and why our bodies react to stimuli. While it is true that we know more about how the body works than we did in the recent past, how anybody believes that we have all the answers or that the popular opinion is necessarily the right one is beyond me. There are so many interest groups pushing their views onto the public, and the results have little to do with the truth. They are just accepted wholesale without much critical thinking. I have a lot of respect for the people that have the skills and the integrity to keep looking for the truth, and to realize that we do not know as much as we think we do.
LikeLike
Your post makes me think more on how the conditions for health can be enhanced for the forces that make for the intelligent design of the body to have their way. Essential lifestyle factors and natural supportive means in the forms of homeopathics, botanicals and nutritionals play a part in this. Overall assisting a person to have a worthy purpose plays even a larger role in allowing intelligent design to have its way. Your blog is a touchstone for having a worthy purpose. Thank you.
LikeLike
great post, thanks!
LikeLike
Interesting post. In doing some research for my lecture, I came across an interesting historical note about modern science’s avoidance of teleological explanations. These have to do with the notion that final causes exist in nature, and thus design and purpose similar to those found in human nature are also found in the rest of nature. For instance, if I wanted to give a really good lecture, I would work to study and prepare for it. In essence, I have chosen to aim at this certain goal.
Scientific teleological explanations have been avoided since the work of Lord Francis Bacon, namely his Novum Organum in 1620. He argued that these final endpoints of nature, whether they are true or not, are beyond the ability of human perception and understanding to judge. Thus, other explanations need to be sought out through processes of acute logic, such as inductive reasoning. Perhaps this is where much of the mechanical view of the universe has its origins.
Various modern medical researches today do believe differently about the nature of disease. They mention ideas such as illnesses being biologically goal-oriented processes, that there is an endpoint in mind which the body constantly strives for, and the nature in which symptoms manifest all has to do with its purposeful ability to defend itself against irritations and it progresses through various stages according to its design.
I find this argument very interesting and compelling, and the application of various biological therapies that consciously work with this concept have proven to have merit time and time again in the successful outcomes of illness resolution. These carry far less ‘side effects’ if any, for their intention is not to interrupt or suppress a natural bodily function but to help express and strengthen the vector established by the body itself in the healing process, as you so well put it.
We need to reconsider design and purpose in our medical sciences for the direction in which it is headed has given great cause for concern in terms of our economic stability and collective welfare. as ultimately we must always strive for simpler, less complicated ways to meet our objectives.
LikeLike
This is such an interesting subject. The terrifying fear and the enormous money that surrounds this particular diagnosis makes it particularly difficult to get to the truth. The intelligent design of the body becomes the enemy to be subdued instead of trying to understand its process. One thing you said today that is so important to every area of our lives and crucial when dealing with disease is …”reaction to always ends in subjection to”.Whether we are the scientists that has the courage to challenge the status quo or the patient that has the courage to base their treatment on what they believe to be their best course of action; trusting and believing in the incredible power of life that creates and can maintain the intelligent design of our body is the position that puts finding the answer in our favor.
LikeLike