The basic principles are the Germ Theory, the Disease Entity Theory, and the belief that there is a Specific Remedy or ‘accepted’ treatment for each Disease. The Germ Theory does, of course, have some merit, however, it is far from gospel or absolute. All diseases are not the result of germs (microbes). Everyone that encounters a given germ does not come down with the disease it is associated with. The Disease Entity theory basically states that a ‘disease’ is essentially an ‘entity’ that one develops or contracts. Once someone ‘gets’ that disease, it has a life of its own, and it will progress in a specific, predictable fashion. The key to proper treatment is to first name the disease entity and that will tell what ‘Remedy’ to use (similar to demonology). I could write a book on all of the reasons, like logic and science, why this is complete nonsense.
A ‘disease,’ although there may be a variety of pathological processes involved, is NOT a REAL thing. It is simply a nomenclature system based on a variety of signs and symptoms that are fairly common, variable, and changeable.
To reiterate, a disease is not a real thing, it does not exist as a thing independent of the host. You don’t catch diseases like diabetes or cancer or COPD, all of them are the result of, in most cases, many years of NOT living in harmony with the environment and listening to our bodies.
The germ theory was, and is, just a theory. There’s certainly some truth to the idea that microbes can overgrow and cause a variety of serious health challenges under the right conditions. There are even some really nasty microbes that will kill a high percentage of individuals that encounter them. However, only a small percentage of death and disease are a direct result of microbes. Over 85% of all health challenges these days are chronic conditions that result from poor lifestyle choices.
Even Louis Pasteur, the father of germ theory realized that he was wrong about it. His famous death bed quote was ’the microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything’ should have dissuaded his followers from adhering so strictly to his earlier theory.
Finally, the idea that the present ‘standard of care’ must, or should be, adhered to in spite of new findings, sound clinical judgment and expertise, and common sense is absurd. Just because an extremely biased consensus exists is no reason to ignore logic, reason, and conflicting clinical & scientific evidence. To do so is simply NOT sound science nor the best approach to patient care.
The combination of our focus on building health, looking at all of the evidence, thinking outside of the box of ‘the standard of care,’ and choosing the optimum strategy for each patient, are the things that make ARTC unique.
