People are often surprised to hear that numerous medical doctors and PhD scientists have used the protocols in my books to heal either themselves, or a family member. When you read Dr. Silvio Najt’s story below, you’ll get a better idea of why. This is also a good blog post to forward onto family members who are worried that you are using natural treatments for your IBD, rather than drugs or surgery. So let’s start with Silvio Najt MD’s story:
“I became a physician in 1976 and then I did my specialization in cardiology. I received my training as a clinician in a heart surgical center. I was always a very curious, inquisitive practitioner. At the beginning I bought into the concept that medical science “saves lives” and that the scientific method was the gold standard that someday will defeat illness. I didn’t know how wrong I was.
Years later, I went into my second specialization, emergency medicine. This is yet a more structured medical practice than cardiology. In those days I was proud to be a mainstream doctor.
Some years ago I began to think differently. I started outlining a book. My main goal was to define “health”. What does this concept imply? When can someone be considered healthy and when do we lose our place in this category? A common expression says that if you give a doctor enough time, money and resources, he/she will find something abnormal in you. You will lose your position of being a healthy person and become their client. I recommend you take the time to read a funny article published in 1994 in the New England Journal of Medicine called The Last Well Person.
As the years went by, I discovered that medicine approaches medical problems in a very simplistic way; as if the body has only one way of reacting. And even if medical science doesn’t have a consistent definition, or treatment, it still acts as if the doctor can effectively study, identify and treat any case. It is hard to find a practitioner who will admit his ignorance in a particular case. This is called the “biomedical model”: the notion that the disease activity determines the clinical outcome, in other words, disease does not equate with illness.
On the opposite side, there is an alternative model that is slowly starting to win popularity among clinicians, it is called the “biopsychosocial model”. It proposes that illness and disease are the result of simultaneously interacting systems at the cellular, tissue, organism, interpersonal and environmental levels. This approach integrates biological science with the uniqueness of the individual, to determine the degree to which psychosocial factors interact, in order to explain the disease, illness and outcome. For the last 15 years I have been exploring this model. I went to the School of Anthropology and tried to learn medical anthropology. A completely new approach. I now feel that if I’d had this knowledge right at the beginning of my medical career, I would have b