Understand one's own disease

 

THIRD LAW : THE NATURE OF THE SYMPTOMS WITH REGARD TO BOTH PHASES

This third biological law was called "ontogenetic tumour system and equivalents" by its author. Ontogenetic because the comprehension criteria rest on the embryonic development of the organism (what is called ontogenesis); tumours and equivalents hinting at the various pathologies encountered at the level of the organs.

But, before taking up these pathologies, we will first come back to the nature of the modifications occurring at the level of the brain, because the symptoms deriving from it are an integral part of the "diseases" and vary as much according to the two phases. During the first conflictual phase, one observes the outbreaks related to sympatheticotonia but the disturbance of the cerebral centre corresponding to the conflict translates essentially into the peripheral organs: at the level of the centre itself, it only concerns a dysfunction. In the second phase, however, next to the outbreaks related to vagotonia, the reparation of the cerebral centre gives rise to consequences justifying some developments.

Concretely, in the restoring cerebral centre, a transient oedema is formed and the glial cells proliferate. This glie is another tissue of the brain. It does not have the property to stock and to vehicle the information, as do the nervous cells (neurones), but it has a role of support, nutrition, isolation and reparation of the nervous tissue as such. The "congestion of the centre within the solution phase is related to the importance of the conflict and may go as far as to present the appearance of a "cerebral tumour", clearly visible during medical imaging examination such as the scanner or the nuclear magnetic resonance. But, next to the oedema, forming the major part of it, the diagnosed proliferation does only concern the different types of glial cells, a neurone not being able to reproduce anyway. These "tumours" are a proof of the second repairing phase of the complete disease and, more precisely, of reparation at the cerebral level; they follow the cycle of this second phase, at the outcome of which they can leave harmless glial scars. During their development, however, they can entail various complications.

Considering the spatial limits imposed on the brain by the skull, the oedema of the centre may give rise to compression phenomena of the centre itself and of the nearby nervous tissues; this last eventuality being explanatory for the possible functional disorders within some organs having no direct relation with the initial conflict. This compression lies at the basis of a whole series of symptoms observed in all affections but that can enormously vary according to the localisation and the extent of the phenomenon: headaches, vertigo, fever, disorders of the sight and of other senses, strange feelings inside the head, etc… In more important cases: syncope, coma, epileptic crises, "thromboses", etc… It is here, for example, that the death origin of myocardial infarction where heart arrest is due to a too strong compression within the cerebral area touched by a conflict where fighting is a must. But let us insist on the fact that oedema and its complications are proportional to the extent of the conflict. And, to keep the example of the infarction, it may be minimal or even pass unnoticed if the conflict was of minor importance.

Beside the large number of organs in our body , the tissues composing them may be reduced to some large types, all of them having their own deterioration manner during the conflictual phase and their own reparation during the restoring phase. By simplifying somewhat, a complete disease may present three concrete cases: in the first phase, the tissue will proliferate, destroy itself or set itself out of order; the second phase will respectively see the tissue being destroyed or encysted, reconstruct itself or re-function again.

IN THE FIRST CASE, the conflictual phase entails a cell proliferation. The affected organ consequently develops a tumour, the evolution of which being proportional to the intensity and the duration of the conflict. The classic distinction between non-malignant and malignant ("cancer") tumour is only descriptive. Let us remind that the first one would be more moderate but staying on its site of origin while the second one would be more rapid with a tendency to generalise by spreading. Actually, the tumour develops more or less fast according to the intensity of the conflict and as long as the latter is not resolved. This tumour only concerns the organ whose directing area within the brain is disturbed and the classical notion of "metastasis" is only one of the numerous hypotheses meant to fill the incomprehension as to the origin of what is called cancer. If a patient presents with several tumour locations, it means that he has been confronted with several conflicts and, consequently, several cerebral affections. Besides, we will come back to the notion of cancer in the paragraph devoted to it in the second part.

After the solution of the conflict, two possibilities exist. As we will see in the fourth law, if the organism disposes of the adequate microbes, there will be a reduction of the tumour involving all signs of inflammation and infection it implies, as well as the numerous blood modifications, simply testifying of this destruction. If not, the sound part of the organ will proceed to an encystment of the tumour, which will forever remain inactive unless the conflict is re-stimulated.

A few examples: most of the digestive mucosa, the profound layer of the skin, the alveoli of the lungs, the glandular part of the breast, etc…

IN THE SECOND CASE, we are confronted with an almost reversed scheme. During the conflictual phase, the organ is subject to destruction (ulceration, necrosis, loss of substance) and here, recovery will entail a cellular proliferation aimed at filling the loss of substance. This proliferation may be a simple cicatrisation or take the aspect of a real and sometimes very voluminous "tumour". The microbes (being the subject of the 4th law) also intervene to remove the lesions before reconstruction and to speed up this reconstruction. In this case, the tumour has an entirely different signification since it testifies of reparation and only develops after the solution of the conflict. It may be as fast and important as in the first concrete case and within a medical conception according to which all tumours are pathological, the restoring phenomenon will then be appreciated as being moderate if the tumour is considered to be non-malignant or very severe if its extent implies the cancer diagnosis. The reparation tumour, in proportion, often goes beyond the preliminary organ destruction, but it has always reached her time i.e. that without conflict relapse, it is always bound to stop. It is also accompanied by inflammatory phenomena (and among others with adhesions to adjoining tissues) looming up when the process is ended.

A few examples: the bone and the bone marrow, the superficial layer of the skin, the muscles, the ganglions, the excreting ducts of the glands (including the breast where it is therefore important to know which type of tumour we are dealing with), the bronchi, etc…

Bearing these two first concrete cases in mind, one can already apprehend the tragic consequences of the sole organic symptoms: the announcement to the patient that he is invaded by a cancer when he is in fact within the often distressing reparation phase and still morally fragile after the solution of his conflict means risking to see him plunge into an even more dramatic experience than the one at the origin of the initial affection.

IN THE THIRD CASE, there is neither proliferation nor destruction during the conflictual phase, but only a reduction or a stop of the activity, reversible after the solution of the conflict. This method concerns, above all, tissues having a nervous activity: within the organs of the senses, within the cortical tissues responsible for sensitivity and motricity, etc…

Those three first laws convey a totally different dimension to the concept of disease. Up to now, this term was understood as a whole of concomitant symptoms, always judged unfavourably. In other words, being ill meant presenting objective abnormalities (swelling, necrosis, inflammation,…) and/or subjective ones (pain, unusual sensations, various discomforts, …); abnormalities having only unknown, hazardous or statistical origins and that had to be fought to recover. It is now a question of correctly interpreting the sense of all the symptoms by linking them to one of the two phases of the complete disease, according to the affected tissue. Discomfort as such may accompany the first phase, but it is most often during the second restoring phase that the patient will take medical advice and that his actual experiences will be "completed" by a diagnosis of the disease he is suffering from.

The first phase discomfort especially concerns the mucosa, the ulceration of which will be more painful according to their innervation (peptic ulcer, ulcer of the urinary passages, ulcer of the vessels, …), the complications by compression of the proliferation (compression of the nerves, of the respiratory tracts, of vessels, …) and the reduction of functioning (glands, organs of the senses, paralysis, …).

The discomfort, far more frequent during self-recovery, physiologically explains itself by all the processes of inflammation (swellings, oedema, reparation tumours,…), of microbial cleaning, of compression of the cerebral tissue, of weariness, etc… This "shift" between conflict and discomfort is even an "asset" in the mechanism of the disease. Because the onset of a major conflict is, in fact, that of a delay and of a countdown: the individual must solve his conflict to survive. If he always perceived the physical pain in his organs coupled with the psychic pain of his scrutinising (where he looks for the solution), he would have less chance to get out of it. When, on the contrary, relieved of his conflict, he can more easily devote himself to the arduous reparation.