The comfort of strangeness …

08 Jul

… or shrinking the big C. For the promise of comfort it makes to those in a health crisis one would certainly wish for GNM to be true. It’s comforting because rather than viewing the symptoms and sufferings of a health crisis as scarifying and threatening and something to be gotten rid of as soon as possible, GNM views them as a meaningful and comprehensible biological programme of nature.

In other words, our diseases are trying to restore us to health, to balance, after having received a biological shock, and not trying to kill us, as much of medical thinking now believes. For example, lung cancer from a GNM perspective is the body’s attempt to increase lung capacity in order to help us survive an ‘existence conflict’, and the lungs are affected precisely because being able to breathe is absolutely central to our being alive. GNM tells a similar story for all diseases caused by a biological shock: in every case the response on the organic level of the body to the experience of shock can be framed as a story of enhancing some necessary biological function.

Gone are the days when a diagnosis of the big C is received as a death threat; gone are the days when in response to the questions ‘why me, why cancer, why now?’ the oncologist just shrugs and recommends the standard treatments of chemo, radiation or surgery; gone are the days when after a number of years a woman who is in the clear still wonders either what she did to bring on the lump in her breast or what carcinogen caused it. If GNM is true, that is.

GNM has an elegant story about cause and effect entirely lacking in the current paradigm. No doubt that accounts for a large part of its appeal. The practitioner can assure the patient that some kind of shock must have been experienced, and with careful investigation, and knowing what to look for in any particular case, the cause can be determined. Having identified a cause, the principle of ‘removing the cause’ can then be applied to resolving the conflict that is generating disease. This puts control firmly back in the patients hands. How different that is from current medical practice which seems to be entirely focused on the experts getting rid of the troublesome effects, with no real knowledge of cause.

Resolving the conflict, however, is only the first half of the ‘special biological programme’ that kicks in after a biological shock. The body reacts in one of two ways: cell proliferation (cancer) or cell destruction (ulceration, necrosis). Which of these reactions during the ‘conflict active’ phase occurs depends on which part of the brain registers the shock. If it’s the old brain (brain stem and cerebellum), cancers form. If it’s the new brain (cerebral cortex), cell destruction (and also loss of function) results.

All of these effects must then be undone and repaired in the second phase of the programme, once the shock has been resolved. During this second, reparation phase we notice many of the symptoms which we normally associate with being sick: fever, inflammation, lethargy. So contrary to what we’ve always believed, that such symptoms are signs of unwellness, of something being wrong, from the GNM perspective signs they are of something being right, of healing!

Which is not to say that you should do nothing and let the healing process do its job and everything will be fine. Far from it, because depending on the severity of the original shock and the duration of the active phase, the organs could be so deeply compromised that the reparation phase results in death. Equally, though, there will be times when the healing phase must be endured, and not interfered with by medical intervention, in order to reach a full restoration of health. In fact, inappropriate intervention during what is essentially a healing crisis can ironically hurry the arrival of the grim reaper!

What GNM would make possible if true is for the medical practitioner to know exactly where the patient currently is in the outworking of a special biological programme: are they in the ‘conflict active’ phase, in which case the biological shock needs to be identified and resolved; are they in the reparation phase, in which case the body needs to be supported through the healing crisis? The kinds of interventions that will be helpful depend on this knowledge. Conversely, the kinds of interventions that will not be helpful and may potentially be fatal also depend on this knowledge. This is knowledge entirely lacking in the conventional paradigm.

As necessary as such knowledge therefore seems, however, the question remains: does GNM actually possess it?

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 8, 2011 in Uncategorized


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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

%d bloggers like this: