Do we look too much at tables and numbers and too little at life itself?

In the first half of the 19th century, there was a striking incidence of puerperal fever at public birthing facilities. In contrast, the problem occurred rather rarely at home births.

In the 1850s, Ignaz Semmelweis had discovered through careful observation that the disease was particularly common among doctors who also dissected corpses. And that the number of cases decreased when these doctors washed their hands after leaving the dissecting room.

The resulting instruction to act, however, was taken as an affront by the gods in white of the time.

Without the existence of germs even being known, Semmelweis had through mindful observation an important and life-saving connection recognized.

Semmelweis' colleagues regarded his findings as pure absurdity, he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital at the age of 47 and died there within 2 weeks. 

In today's time such a procedure would be completely unthinkable, wouldn't it? It would never be conceivable that laymen take apart the "conspiracy theories" - partly formulated by highly respected scientists - even before one would have the chance to examine the statements value-free. Let alone, an open and public discourse of both sides may take place.

I do not mean to imply that what is called a conspiracy theory is always valuable, but only that - then as now - certain interests are behind "public opinion" and it is therefore advisable to make up your own mind. To become one's own fact checker, so to speak.

A saying of Magellan's perfectly brings out what I mean:

„The church says the earth is flat, but I know it's round because I've seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than I do in the church."

That sounds conclusive at first, but isn't it true that under certain circumstances a disk could also cast a circular shadow?

How about the approach of the Greek Eratosthenes, who lived in Alexandria in the third century BC: It came to his attention that in the Egyptian city of Syene there is a fountain in which the sun is reflected in a fountain on the day of the summer solstice - and in a perfect way. Eratosthenes first struck a stick into the ground in his hometown of Alexandria and waited for the next summer solstice. He saw that his stick cast a shadow at 12 o'clock on June 21, from which an angle of insolation of 7.2 degrees could be calculated.

Before the next solstice he traveled to Syene and found the rumor confirmed that at the said time there the sun actually played in a well, so also a stick then no shadow threw. From this he concluded that the earth's surface must be curved.

Through mindful observation, he had discovered that "public opinion" was a misconception. And not only that. From the shadow angles and the distance of the two cities where he had taken measurements, he calculated a circumference of the earth of 40,000 kilometers. That is an accuracy of 99.92% - mind you, 2300 years ago!

The superstition of living on a disc was nevertheless maintained by the ruling powers for many more centuries, and in the course of this, tens of "rebels" and "deviants" were killed who questioned the prevailing opinion.

Of course, there is a risk that you will establish false causalities or fall prey to other errors while observing. However, this should not tempt you to leave the explorative observation exclusively to others. And this is especially true with regard to your body.
No one knows this like you do, no one is able to collect so much data and draw meaningful and healing conclusions from it.

So ask as often as you can:

How gets me

• this food
• this drug
• this place
• this partnership
• this air
• this habit
• this friendship
• this activity
• this dietary supplement?

When did a deterioration of my condition occur, and what was going on in my life at that time?

What happened when I felt better?

The following is another little story that shows the simple way in which research & medicine was conducted 250 years ago - and how successful it was:

In 1754, doubts arose in the mind of the British ship's doctor James Lind as to whether people suffering from scurvy were being treated properly. At that time, sailors often traveled by ship for weeks at a time and had to live off the supplies on board. Sometimes that was nothing but ship's biscuits.

Today, it is assumed that vitamin C deficiency occurred under these extreme nutritional conditions and that the sailors therefore fell ill with scurvy. Symptoms include muscle wasting, high fever and severe diarrhea, often resulting in death. 

At that time, no one knew of a substance called vitamin C, which is found in citrus fruits, among other things. It was not until 1921 that ascorbic acid was discovered and named vitamin C by the biochemist Silvester.

At the time of James Lind, there were six different treatments for scurvy: fruit wine, sulfuric acid, vinegar, nutmeg, oranges, and lemons. 

Lind sought out 12 sailors who all suffered from the same scurvy symptoms, and placed them under the same conditions of room and board. He further divided these twelve seamen into six groups. Each of these groups of two was then subjected to one of the six common treatments.

The treatment with citrus fruits showed by far the best effect.

James Lind published his discovery, whereupon care was taken to ensure that all ships had lemon juice on board. As a result, the number of scurvy cases dropped rapidly.

And now I put a provocative questionWhy don't we do this kind of research today? Why don't we put 12 cancer patients (with the same type of cancer and in the same stage) in a clinic and let 2 of them try the following form of therapy:

• Cannabis oil
• DMSO
• Special diet (eg without carbohydrates)
• The Gerald Hagler combination: Bengston, strength training, introspection, forest & barefoot walking in nature, breath training
• Reiki
• Chemotherapy & Radiation

The whole experiment, say, at least over 6 weeks. 

And I mean really do it like you did back then, so NO daily blood draw and analysis of cancer markers, but only after the 6 week period is up. 

See the human being as a whole, not as a chemical soup that can be measured at any time and influenced with chemistry from the outside like a swimming pool. 

Because the subtle level - consciousness - cannot be measured, at least not with the means available today.

Very likely, despite the most modern technical facilities, it is still the case today that - as in Semmelweis' time - we simply do not yet understand certain factors because we cannot measure them.

But observe the effect, we could. And draw meaningful conclusions from it. 

I realize that what has been said is provocative and I would be very interested in YOUR opinion on this. 

Why do we no longer observe today, but only conduct research in laboratories? 

Is it easier for modern medicine to perform a blood analysis than to give a patient words of encouragement or even admonition?