Barricades, invaders, counter-intelligence, air raids and killer cells - language creates reality and reality creates language. Medical terminology is being investigated from this angle. The result: the language of medicine is identical with the language of an army commander.
In the whole of Western medicine and therefore in the medical literature, in schools, in the general press and accordingly in the awareness of the general public the immune system has become the gauge for human health. A healthy and strong immune system protects the person from external invaders and keeps him well. Its task is to eliminate or destroy all hostile or alien substances. Otherwise these substances may damage the immune system or the body, rendering them incapable of functioning properly or even be destroyed.
The immune system is seen as the "armed forces of the body" and compared to an army without a commanding general. This statement illustrates the dichotomy of this ideology: an army always has a hierachical structure and cannot react or fight without a commander. "The immune system comprises of an arsenal of chemical substances and cells using various strategies to combat a wide range of enemies. Some of these defence specialists attack anything and everything whereas others are specialising in certain targets." The insight into the immune system is new and today we know that we have "an army of inspectors, intelligence agents, couriers and others, who subscribe to one task only: defending the 'self' - those components of the body that the immune system recognises as occurring naturally in the body." (Time Life) This mode of expression is almost identical with the mode of expression of a defence minister whose country is at war, describing the military defence organisation of his country. "In addition to scouts and soldiers the armed forces of the body include scores of cells with the task of remembering battles of the past in order to sound the charge should an old enemy return." The body is "fitted with a marker that signals self or foreign" and therefore decides what has to be attacked and what does not have to be attacked.
The first "line of defence" are the "barriers" that prevent "potential invaders" and "foreign material" from entering the body: "The actual armour of the body is the skin which is an impenetrable barrier for numerous types of invasions". The "barriers" of the body employ "various protection techniques and co-operate with intelligence agents." The pages that follow describe the "defence techniques" as "effective barricades". "The first line of defence not only barricades the way into the body for the invaders but ensures also that disease-causing agents are either eliminated or destroyed."
The phagocytes, a subclass of white blood cells and generally termed the police of the body, are here called "the voracious body guards" that "keep everything in order, attack and destroy invaders, call for assistance and dispose of the remains. Their way of eliminating the unwelcomed is simple but drastic: They devour it." But white blood cells can only devour bacteria and not viruses, the size of a fraction of a millimetre that cannot be seen under an ordinary microscope. The white blood cells, leucocytes, are "equipped for battle" to do their job as a patrol.
The thymus is seen as the training centre where immature T-cells undergo a "tough drill" to mature and to take on their tasks in defending the body. These "immature immune cells" are being trained to become T-cells that are necessary for the defence and subsequently used as central "weapons" of the immune system to destroy "attackers". Furthermore, there are the "B-cells that form part of the most versatile defence weapons of the immune system. Their strike power is based on y-shaped proteins on the cell surface, the so-called receptors. With their help the cells can recognise a wide variety of enemies." Detecting an "enemy" triggers the mass production of antibodies in the B-cell. "An attacker that penetrates through the skin is being greeted by an antibody; both combine to the so-called antigen-antibody-complex." This in turn triggers a number of molecular reactions that have various important functions. The most important is the "recruitment" of the voracious white blood cells that devour the attacking foreign substances (antigens). Time Life for example describes on 95 pages under chapter headings like "Old enemy, new weapons", "Triumphant killer cell", "Effective barricade", "Prepared for battle", "Hard drill for budding cells", "Learnt defence", "Strike power of the B-cells", "Call to arms", "Red alert", "On the trail of anarchists", "A deserting cell", "Strategy of disguise and deception", "Helper cells as reinforcement", "Attack on two fronts", "Defence against air raids", how the different body parts defend themselves against "attackers" from the outside and which strategies they use in the course of this.
Unfortunately, Time Life - by the way a very well made book - is not the inglorious exception, but only a prime example for the general use of martial language in Western medicine. War language is the language of the text books too: "Atlas of Anatomy" (1994), "Encyclopedia of the Human Body" (1992) talk of the "defence mechanism of the body" and "bacterial invasion". Also the dtv-Atlas of Physiology (1996) mentions the constant "danger to the body from infectious microbes in the environment" against which the body has to defend itself and has to become immune to in order to stay healthy. This is followed by numerous pages describing the defence strategies of the body. Language and content of all these books are almost identical.
All of these texts are concerned with conquering and therefore destroying an external enemy. The term conquering always implies that one of the parties involved will be defeated in the battle. In military language the term conquering can only refer to a battle and winning the whole war, whereas in more general language winning can be a more equal process in which both or more parties can actually win and where the complete and utter destruction of the opponent is not necessarily the aim.
Every day experience in hospitals and the way that people are dealt with reflect the image physicians have of people and the human body. The nursing staff is only too familiar with idiomatic expressions like "knocking out" an unsettled patient with sedatives in order to keep him quiet. Newspapers, magazines and television regularly report on the dissatisfaction and helplessness of people when they are ill and especially if hospitalised. The general public is increasingly loosing trust in medicine, particularly in physicians. Usually the ever increasing use of technology and therefore the dehumanization is held responsible. But the language and the underlying awareness of modern medicine as such, are never addressed.
The language of medicine describes the daily battle the body is having to fight and win on the battle fields of every day life. The concept of thinking behind this is identical to the mentality of an army commander - fight, win and conquer - in accordance with Cesars motto "Veni, vedi, vici". It also demonstrates the arrogance of humankind who still thinks we are the chosen ones amongst the creation and therefore superior to other living beings.
Let us start from the assumption that language creates reality and take this even further to assuming that on the deepest level thought creates language. From this follows that the priority must be to grab the problem at its root, not at its manifestations, i.e. technology. Language does create reality and a developing language reflects thought and therefore forms of awareness. On the other hand being born into a mother language creates thought patterns that determine how we perceive our environment. Change starts with the change of perception which is followed by a change of language. A new type of enlightenment is required to change the awareness of teachers, students and practitioners within medicine and simultaneously change the awareness of the general public at large. This will also strengthen the changing awareness which will allow people to insist on their needs and interests on the "battle field" called hospital.
Also alternative approaches, as for example Thorwald Detlefsen whose books and theories are widely known, are caught up in the traps of their culture and unconscious. In his book "Krankheit als Weg" (Illness as a Path) he describes e.g. the causes of allergy, which is one of most widespread diseases (approximately 70% of people suffer from allergies): "Allergy ... is an over-reaction to a substance that has been identified as being foreign. In terms of the bodies capability of survival the bodies defence system is legitimate. The immune system produces antibodies against allergens and is therefore - seen form the bodies point of view - a sensible defence against enemy intruders. In the case of an allergic person this fundamentally sensible defence is exaggerated way out of proportion. He acrues an arms build-up and extends his concept of the enemy to ever more areas. More and more substances are being declared enemies and more and more weapons are being produced in order to combat these manifold enemies. But just as an arms build-up in the military area is a sign of strong aggressivity allergy is an expression of strong defences and aggressivity that have been repressed into the body. ... In the case of allergy, aggression has plunged into the body where it is working itself off: To its hearts content it can defend and attack, fight and conquer. In order for this occupation which is full of relish, not having to stop due to a lack of enemies, harmless objects are being declared enemies: pollen, cat or horse hair, dust ...... Yes, the person suffering from an allergy does find a well disguised field of activity to realise unrecognizedly his suppressed aggressions in this tyranny over the environment. ..... Therefore it is hardly surprising that in some cases allergy can aggravate to becoming a life threatening autoimmune (auto-aggression) disease in which the body of, alas!, such a gentle person is fighting ferocious battles until the body itself will perish. And finally all the defending, connecting and isolating can achieve its highest form which will find its fulfilment in the coffin - a truely allergen-free chamber ......"
This text is also not an exception, its content is symptomatic for the psychosomatic approaches. Only that the enemy concept and war language is now explained in psychological terms and therefore refined. The underlying understanding of disease as the enemy as such remains unchanged. This more refined approach creates an even less transparent energy field for the person concerned which makes it more difficult to free yourself out of the cunningly knit snares in order to find their own path.
Although the correlation between awareness, life forms and disease is now being recognized in psycho-neuro-immunology and has led to the emergence of this new discipline, and despite the insights of American behavioural scientists that "language creates reality" being discussed and considered in health programmes about the language used when dealing with severely ill patients in order to avoid negative expressions in relation to the patient or his illness, war language is still every day reality in our hospitals, surgeries etc.
However, this realization is not in the slightest applied to the issue of "language in medicine" and the reality this language creates in the awareness of the general public, and particularly in the medical every day running of physicians surgeries and in hospitals. Various studies at American universities look into the issue of an optimistic versus pessimistic fundamental attitude that can either enhance or prevent disease and into the fundamental attitude of "learnt helplessness", a behaviour with clear physiological consequences on the immune system. "Learnt helplessness has an effect down to the cellular level and makes the immune system more passive". Therefore these people are overall far more prone to disease, whereas optimistic people are not willing "to take refuge in helplessness". Various institutions in the USA have developed training programs for pessimistic persons to learn an optimistic attitude.
Many medical books and studies are concerned with the problem of compliance, the co-operation of the patient, and there are reports of decreasing compliance in all parts of the world. On an immediate level this indicates a general loss of trust in the abilities of physicians and their methods. But on a deeper level this means that the awareness structures of physicians and patients are wildly diverging. Patients look more and more towards alternative methods, where they hope to find a more patient and body friendly treatment approach.
This contradiction is in fact, one of the fundamental philosophical problems of our society: it reflects the inner contradiction between disease and health, our differentiation between subject (self) and object (foreign) and between subject (head and reasoning) and object (body), between inside and outside. I have discussed this point in depth in my article "Philosophy of Disease" and referred to historical correlations of its origin.
Even if the alternative therapies offer a more patient and body friendly treatment approach, in their fundamental attitude towards illness and in their understanding of an external enemy they do not differ essentially from conventional medicine. The patient is being treated in a more friendly manner and in a holistic sense more all-embracingly, different approaches of various diciplines are taken into account. But the diagnosis-thinking is prevalent, also amongst alternative practitioners and usually understood in the same linear way as in classical medicine.
The historical development of our relationship to health and sickness has been described in depth in my article on the philosophy of disease. A further historical factor in the life sciences has been formative for the martial approach in modern medicine. 140 years ago two French scientists were searching for the cause of fermentation. The results of their research led to the theory of bacteria as the cause of fermentation and disease. (Dr. Heidi Kölle discussed this issue in depth in her article in espacio time 3/96.) Louis Pasteur, chemist and physicist (1822-1895) - one of the two researchers - found that airborne microorganisms (later called bacteria) caused fermentation. Pasteur ignored the microorganisms inside the cells that also caused fermentation and fulfilled other important biological tasks and functions.
His colleague Bechamp subscribed to the view that microcymases and their evolutionary forms (bacteria) are being released into the air during the decomposition of vegetable and animal matter. According to Bechamp these microcymases or cell granules, set off fermentation and develop continuously into bacteria. If the tissue is healthy they promote the life of cells and the integrity of the cells. But if the cells are damaged they produce diseased microcymases which in turn can develop into diseased bacteria. He proved that bacteria can grow on very different culture mediums and alter their form and function to adjust to the different culture mediums. Therefore the bacteria reflect the conditions they are exposed to.
The major difference between the two researchers is that Pasteur taught that bacteria are the disease-causing agent, whereas Bechamp taught that the bacteria are created by the disease. Pasteur had great influence and because of the simplifications of his theories they were readily accepted and disseminated. Pasteur was not a biologist and did not know a great deal about life processes. He was terrified of infections and believed in the aggressivity of bacteria. The idea was accepted that bacteria are attacking us and lead to the destruction of our health.
One hundred years after Pasteur's death his last male descendant gave permission for Pasteur's note books to be released. After twenty years of investigating his more than 100 note books, many irregularities and unscientific methods were detected. Pasteur fell victim to the mistake many scientists make: when he had an idea that he liked all the experiments were based on proving it and contradictory information was ignored and went by the board. But Pasteur is by far not the only scientist who lied in the name of truth, misleading the whole world. In his book "Der große Schwindel" (the great fraud) Fredericco Di Trocchio exposed many lies from Ptolemy, Galilei, Newton, Mendel and other great scientists. According to an article in the German magazine Focus, "Lug und Trug mit Doktorhut" (Lies and deception with a doctor's cap), this appears to be a commonplace practice of many "great" scientists.
Cynthia Couroyer, an American researcher who worked for many years on the effects of inocculation, came to the following conclusion: "The theory that disease is caused by bacteria pleases the human ego. The majority of us are very willing to believe that diseases we suffer from are the work of external forces - just like we hold bad luck responsible for our failures." The reaction of "external enemies" to all external human achievements like penicillin, antibiotics etc. show that they are not willing to be "exterminated" by humankind but that they maintain their place in the world: they are becoming resistant. In Singapore for example only one effective antibiotic is left, the bacteria have developed resistance to all others. Penicillin that was so successful in its early days, has already lost its efficacy in 78% of cases worldwide, the infectious agents have become resitant to penicillin.
If Bechamps's theory that disease produces bacteria had been generally accepted by his contemporaries, and not the other way round, we would have far more personal responsibility for our own health. Just like bacteria in Bechamp's understanding, human beings adjust to the 'culture medium' of the respective society and allow society to determine for them whether disease is originating externally or internally. Theories of scientists are always received by the prevailing environment according to its level of awareness. Anyone who is ahead of his time knows how difficult it is to publicly support new insights that contradict current thinking until they are generally accepted. For this reason many scientists use imagination and bend the truth to make them 'socially acceptable'. Others desperately want to impose their theories and prove themselves. Regardless of the personal motivation of these people, their ideas fall onto the 'culture medium' of society and the prevailing awareness in society. Louis Pasteurs theory of the enemy from the outside, corresponded with the contemporary conception of the world and general level of awareness. Therefore it was easily adopted by other researchers and by society at large. Pasteur was a highly respected man and in authoritarian societies the theories of an eminent figure are accepted far more readily than those of less or unknown scientists. The high art of falsifying, according to Di Trocchio, comprises of getting results "that are considered highly likely on the basis of the current level of science".
Many new healing approaches report of "healing through spiritual powers". These are reports of terminally ill people who did not accept their death sentence but prescribed themselves their own cure: The Hungarian composer Bela Bartok was in the terminal phase of leukemia when he was commissioned for a new orchestral piece. The disease came to a halt and the composer could even be present at the premiere. The American publicist Norman Cousins suffered from a deteriorating severe spinal disorder. He refused the death sentence by his physician and prescribed himself a therapy comprising of vitamin C and laughing, watching old Hollywood comedies for days on end. Norman Cousins recuperated and soon returned to normal life. The nine year old Marsha Hunt was confined to the iron lung and over-heard physicians informing her parents that she did not have much longer to live. But this only boosted her will to live, every day she imagined herself frollicking about in the sunshine. After a while her condition improved and she recuperated fully. There are thousands of such cases (also in my own family) where healing has to be regarded as a "co-operative effort of body and soul".
An investigation into whether double blind studies are meaningful or not confirms this approach. In the spring issue of espacio time we reported on an experiment conducted by two girls in Lower Saxony, Germany, as a school project. They grew beans and praised one group but scolded the other. The scolded plants grew significantly slower and produced far less beans than the praised plants.
In a different experiment four groups of rabbits with cancer were treated as follows: one group received just drug treatment and was not greeted, stroked etc. by the researchers. The second group received placebos and was also not greeted or stroked. The third group received drug treatment but in addition was greeted, stroked and talked to by the scientists. And the fourth group was given placebos and the staff talked to them, greeted and stroked them. The results were that an almost identical percentage (more than 60%) of rabbits in the latter two groups recovered whereas only 15% of animals in the first two groups recovered.
American studies of cancer treatment in humans show similar trends. If prior to chemotherapy patients are given a favorite dish, a brandy or sweets, something they really like, the treatment is more successful and causes far less side effects. Even the dosage can be reduced with this method and the drugs are still as effective.
Eastern traditions of medicine are characterised by a different philosophy entirely: every body has its own frequency of vibration. Physicians see it as their task to help the body, if this frequency is disturbed, to return to its own, healthy vibratory frequency.
In summary, one can say that the recovery rate with any disease is much higher if real contact is made with the sick person, if he is encouraged, accepted and supported, and not reduced to a diagnosis that is being treated. A sick body reacts very sensitively to any form of treatment and if it is reduced to a mere object, showered with war language and regarded as part of an army, it certainly is energetically more difficult for the person concerned and therefore causes disease, rather than providing support. In this light the increasing dissatisfaction of the general public with the medical system is completely understandable.
We have seen that external care has a great influence on the healing process. But one's own inner care does not only accelerate the healing process further but can even be the trigger for medically inexplicable spontaneous healing. The more we are able to truely get involved with ourself on a deep level, the more we create a connection between body, mind and soul, and thus connect with the healing forces in our own energy field. Often this is a long process because we have to clear out so many ideas, concepts and structures that we have adopted from society. Therefore each single person who changes his inner attitude towards disease will influence the change in society's structures.
Christa Muths
B.Sc., M.A., M.Sc.
Principal of espacio , Internat. Centre for Holistic Studies
Editor of Treff-Räume espacio time
Literature:
Das Immunsystem, Time Life 1994;
Michael Weiner Ph.D, Maximum Immunity, 1989;
Dr. Med. Juchheim, Immun, München 1992;
dtv-Atlas der Physiologie, 1996;
Harris L. Coulter: Impfungen, der Großangriff auf Gehirn und Seele, 1995;
Fredericco Di Trocchio, Die hohe Kunst des Fälschens, 1994;
Thorwald Dethlefsen, Krankheit als Weg, 1996.
© Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the publishers.
