From what I gather thus far through reading Selye’s work, a specific reaction (a “disease”) is a resulted manifestation of non-specific reactions (a “syndrome”).

There is no pure disease. It is physically impossible to have a disease of the heart, liver, kidneys, lungs, thyroid, or reproductive organs without having symptoms or signs of a dis-ease elsewhere in the body (physically and/or non-physically).

Dis-ease can result from non-specific reactions. By non-specific, I mean a general effect due to a general cause. For instance, a cold, influenza, a virus, or bacterial infection all have common, non-specific symptoms that occur in each dis-ease – i.e., fever, coated tongue, fatigue, weight loss, appetite loss, varied elimination habits, etc. – and their cause usually pertains to non-specific adaptations – i.e., low immune function or a low metabolic rate (both lead to susceptibility and their cause cannot be defined from one single antagonist).

So…

To treat a disease, wouldn’t it be better to treat the body that has the disease rather than treating the disease that has the body? 

Could diseases be “cured” through general observations and approaches? Through connecting the dots and retracing steps to understand what general adaptation encouraged a specific disease? Through a specific knowledge of cause and effect rather than a specific knowledge of effect?

If you’d like to discuss this perspective along with other health-related insights, please contact me for a FREE Conversation.

jdperryhealth.com
jdperryhealth.tumblr.com
jdperryhealth@gmail.com