Why the one who heals is not always right…


In reality, the one who heals is not always “right.” In conventional medicine, healing is not the only goal because procedures must be done according to the standards defined by the medical mainstream.
One of my esteemed teachers of homeopathy, more precisely of homotoxicology, would often say in defense of homeopathy, “The one who heals is the one who is right.” I will admit that it was obviously not the most scientific statement, but it still reflects some common sense.
After I had been practicing homeopathy for a few years as part of my integrative medical practice, a man came to consult with me for a difficult problem. A diagnosed diabetic for many years, he had developed a very bad lesion on one of his feet. This lesion was not healing even though he was receiving all of the standard medical attention available, including intensive care of the infected area. After the orthopedic surgeon advised him that the next step would be amputation, he followed the advice of his friends and came to visit me.
I listened attentively to his story and suggested some typical homeopathy suitable for his condition. I didn’t expect much and didn’t want to create impossible expectations in his mind. However, I asked him to be very discreet no matter what the results were, since I knew the orthopedic surgeon and didn’t want to be the object of criticism. Plus I knew that if the patient improved, that still would not be enough to convince the surgeon of the benefits of homeopathy.
A few weeks later, the client came back for a consultation and, exceeding all my expectations, his foot was no longer at risk for amputation. In his enthusiasm, the client had attempted to convert the orthopedic surgeon to homeopathy. But as expected, the specialist, overwhelmed by his scientific superiority, just had a big laugh.
Why would he not at least be curious and investigate what could have made the difference? Because what mattered to him was to follow the standard recognized and accepted model of conventional healing. Sadly, a medical doctor will often expose himself to reprimand by his peers if he ventures outside the mainstream.
Unfortunately, I had to conclude that the concept of healing in conventional medicine is defined by the premises on which a doctor’s medical education is based. Western medicine is a linear model based on a materialistic understanding which cannot grasp homeopathy or most of the energetic medicines. The outcome of the conventional model of education is the training of doctors who are constrained to treat their clients with limited resources for healing, since they could be punished for using anything other than pharmaceutics or surgery.
If you were sick, would you not prefer to have access to a model of medicine based on an updated standard of science: quantum physics?
Quantum University has already expanded the frontiers of healing by establishing a medical and natural medicine curriculum based on the premises on quantum physics and opening the field of healing to infinite possibilities.
Finally, the real question is: When you need a doctor, what kind of doctor do you want? A doctor trained on an outdated model of science with limited resources of healing, or a doctor who is open to infinite possibilities of healing? Or better yet, what about a doctor who has integrated both linear and multidimensional approaches?