The first task of a science that claims its primary aim is to restore health should be to define what “health” is, what the target or goal of treatment is, and in what direction the patient should be guided during his treatment.
One should also define the parameters for measuring health. This should be defined so that anybody can easily ascertain whether an individual under treatment is progressing toward health or is actually regressing toward a deeper state of imbal- ance.
I doubt whether any medical graduate could provide these definitions; I also doubt that medical students are taught to recognize an ideal state of health or to identify the parameters that measure it.
When the pain is gone, when the inflammation has subsided, when a bothersome symptom has disappeared, when the pathology is no longer evident, the patient usually is pronounced cured. Yet there may be long-term disturbances caused by the treatment, especially in deeper or more subtle parts of the human organism such as the immune or hormonal systems or, even worse, in the mental or emotional planes, that are not taken into consideration. A treatment therefore should have a beneficial effect simultaneously on all these levels in order to claim that it is the right kind of treatment.
Treating the whole person, which is now accepted on a rhetorical level by everyone, should be more than a theoretical dictum; it should be an applied reality.
I hope to clearly show in this treatise that such an objective is almost impossible to attain through treatment with allopathic drugs, and that only through some form of alternative medicine practiced correctly, such as Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Osteopathy, Naturopathy, etc., can the potential for such a goal be realized.