Psyche, Brain, Organ: A New Knowledge of Health and Disease
Imagine what it must have been like living in an age before modern technology. Diseases occurred, yet only a small handful of them had well-known causes. Some diseases were known to be caused by poisons. Some were obviously the result of injury. And others were clearly the result of malnourishment. But beyond these, many diseases occurred that baffled the human imagination; e.g., bronchitis, pneumonia, cold sores, skin disease, urinary tract infections, colitis, fever, joint inflammation, and so on…
Between the years 1979 and 1985, a major empirical discovery occurred in the realm of biological science, but most people today have never heard of it.
A person, though never having encountered a poison or suffering an injury—eating and drinking what everyone else enjoyed—for some reason would suddenly become ill. To explain such occurrences, numerous hypotheses were put forward, along with numerous “cures.” Yet, fundamentally, such diseases remained a scientific mystery. All the while, it was logical to assume that something like a poison could be responsible.
The word “virus,” first used in the English language in the late 14th century, derives from the latin word meaning “poison.” From its earliest conception up until the middle of the 20th century, a virus was basically conceived to be a microscopic, “poison-like” entity that could “infect” a person, and even transmit from person to person.
In search of such a poison, virology struggled like all the other hypotheses to prove disease causality. Even with the use of light microscopes, this struggle became all the more apparent, where virologists had to concede that the “entity” was too small to visualize.
Then, in 1953, upon the first electron microscope image of the DNA double helix structure, the field of virology underwent a sudden, much needed theoretical transformation. A new hypothesis emerged, claiming that a “virus” was actually an entity that carried DNA, where this key new feature of a virus could theoretically explain how it propagates and how it causes a given disease. No less than one year later, John Franklin Enders was awarded a Nobel prize and was also publicized to have isolated a viral entity from a cell culture…and the beginning of a new virological model took root.
Frameworks of Disease
Throughout the modern era, a common paradigm exists in our conceptual framework of disease, where each disease is thought to arise through the interactions of material elements within the body. In other words, something physical—either a genetically encoded particle, a bacteria, or a malfunctioning cellular genome—is held to be responsible for the “cause” of the disease.
Germ Theory:
On the subject of microbial bacteria, the hypothesis now called germ theory originated with the use of light microscopes, where it was observed that certain diseases coincided with the presence of certain microbes. It was never established, however, that these microbes could independently cause illness through natural exposure methods. Something else was obviously at work to account for why the same microbe would be “pathogenic” in some individuals and not in others.
Today, however, thanks largely to the efforts of alternative healthcare professionals and researchers (who tend to allow themselves to think outside the box), it is now rather common and accepted to entertain the notion of “psycho-somatic” diseases and the importance of the “placebo effect.” Now most modern practitioners of all walks of life will include “mental and emotional stress” as an important, additional factor pertaining to the question of disease.
Between the years 1979 and 1985, a major empirical discovery occurred in the realm of biological science, but most people today have never heard of it. Today it is referred to as “German New Medicine.” In Spain, it’s called “The Sacred Medicine.” It might as well be called the “New Biology,” since the discoveries revolutionize our understanding of life, health, and disease.
These discoveries center around an intelligent biological process called a biological program of adaptation, which can be shown to activate in specific relays in the brain through the presence of round concentric lesions—sometimes faint, but often sharply visible—detected in each case through a brain CT scan.
The biological program centered in a given relay of the brain controls, in each case, an organ specific (tissue-specific) biological adaptation, which can be confirmed in the organ through normal diagnostic procedures. These organ changes are what are commonly identified and labeled as “diseases” or “pathologies” in medicine. These tissue adaptations include carcinomas (cellular additions), and conversely, they involve necroses and ulcerative processes (cellular loss) in the organic tissues of the body. More on this later.
Here is the salient point: These biological programs, activated in the brain and body and recognized as organ “pathologies” in medicine, do not arise based on purely material or physical forces. They activate owing to the subjective perception of the individual—the subjective perception of an acute, unexpected distress, called a conflict shock.
These psyche-brain-organ phenomena are confirmed to be rooted in the individual’s subjective perception of distress owing to the clear, universal patterns which they all follow: The biological program activates in each case upon the experience of an acute, unexpected distress. Then the program undergoes a sudden, empirical shift in the brain (with a corresponding shift in the organ) only upon the individual’s experience of the resolution of that distress.
In the brain, the “resolution of the distress” coincides with the influx of fluid edema surrounding the lesion, and in the organ a simultaneous inflammatory “healing” process begins which is sometimes labeled “an infection” in medical diagnoses (if bacteria or microbes are present, for instance). In other cases, they are diagnosed as noninfectious inflammatory diseases.
Indeed, any so-called microbial “infection” of a given organ tissue can now be shown to always correspond to a specific relay in the brain that shows itself on a CT scan with a round concentric lesion engulfed in fluid edema!
In other words, in the case of so-called “infections,” the specific microbes—which were already present in the microbiome—only become “pathological” in the given organ when a biological program in the corresponding relay of the brain enters this “edema” phase. And within this new model, we can also understand what the microbes are “doing” in the organ’s tissue—they are working to reverse the previous cellular/ tissue adaptation that was responding to the distress. Since the conflict is now resolved, the microbes “activate” to either help to remove the previous cellular growth on the one hand, or replenish the previous necroses or ulcerations.
(For an in-depth discussion of the biological meaning and purpose of the cell growth or cell loss in each organ, visit Issue 77 of Pathways, or go to LearningGNM.com).
There is a beautiful elegance in this system, where cellular tissue addition or “tumors” are shown to only occur in the endodermal and old mesodermal tissues of the body— the innermost tissues like the colon, liver parenchyma, or breast glands—while “necroses” only occur in the new mesodermal tissues such as the muscular skeletal system. Lastly, “ulcerations” only occur in the ectodermal tissues, such as the stomach mucosa or outer skin.
In essence, these adaptations (cell addition, cell necrosis, cell ulceration) represent the three basic kinds of biological programs that can affect the body, depending on the organ’s embryological tissue and the specific brain relay that is activated.
Here is the salient point: These biological programs, activated in the brain and body and recognized as organ “pathologies” in medicine, do not arise based on purely material or physical forces. They activate owing to the subjective perception of the individual—the subjective perception of an acute, unexpected distress, called a conflict shock.
This elegant arrangement extends to the relays of the brain which control these adaptations. The innermost tissue adaptations are only found in correspondence with brainstem and cerebellum relays (the “old” brain), while the relays that control the new mesodermal and ectodermal tissues are only found in the cerebral medulla and cerebral cortex (the “new” brain). The precision of this system is one of its greatest gifts to biological science.
From “Magic” to New Science
Let’s now explore the phenomenon of “psycho-somatic disease” and “placebo-induced healing” within this new framework.
How can a subjective “emotional” distress induce a disease like a tumor? The answer is that it can trigger a biological program of cellular adaptation from the brainstem or cerebellum.
How can a placebo—a mental belief—result in a diminishment or reversal of a tumor? The answer is that it can suspend, or outright resolve the individual’s subjective distress, leading to edema in the brain lesion and a simultaneous process of cell restoration in the organ, which eliminates the presence of the tumor (with the natural help of microbes).
However, here’s a key question: Why doesn’t a placebo always work? It’s not merely that a person doesn’t “believe hard enough” that the placebo will work. It’s because the exact nature of the distress that triggered the program in the brain still remains unresolved, despite the promise of a placebo. In other words, the nature of the person’s distress relates to something in life that is unaffected or unrelated to what the promise of a placebo might represent.
Chronic Conditions:
If a person presents with a chronic inflammatory condition or “frequent infections” in an organ, it means that the body and psyche is still trying to fully resolve the subjective distress, but is “stuck” in the process of doing so (oftentimes because the distress rears its head in the individual’s life over and over). The key, desirable “intervention” here is not a material substance, injection, or pill, but a tailored effort to resolve the underlying conflict, ideally with the help of the doctor and the individual’s community.
For example, if the conflict shock and brain-organ disease is connected to losing one’s bank account life savings, a placebo pill from a doctor won’t do much, since the disease is sourced in a distress that’s not related to the person’s “health concerns,” it’s related to the money in the bank. However, if the conflict shock and resulting disease happens to be about a fear of death due to long standing symptoms that you thought were benign, but all of a sudden learned through the words of a doctor that “you’re going to die from this,” then the resulting “new” disease will very much be helped by an adequately given placebo pill, since the hope of that placebo directly relates to the nature of the distress.
And this is where we really enter into the revolutionary power of these brain-organ discoveries. Just as there is a one-to-one connection between an organ in the body and a corresponding relay in the brain—so too is there a one-to-one connection between the affected brain relay and a particular “kind” of conflict distress in life. Like “a gift from the gods,” this mapping of a one-to-one connection between each brain relay and its psyche-equivalent unique “category of distress” has been established and verified! (https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/verifications.html)
Now, by knowing the exact nature of the shocking distress that triggers a specific brain-organ program of tissue adaptation in an individual, we can enter into a workable science of precise conflict resolution, to achieve pragmatic healing success.
Predictability of “Infectious” Diseases
In this psyche-brain-organ model concerning an “infectious” or contagious disease such as measles, it can now be confidently said:
1) That a measles rash will only ever appear if there is a lesion specifically in the sensory cortex of the brain controlling the ectodermal epithelium of the outer skin.
2) The exact location of the lesion will determine where on the skin the rash will predominate.
3) The inflammatory rash itself will only appear when that lesion presents with edema, and this will only occur when the specific conflict in question that the individual experienced (called a separation conflict) is resolved in life.
Measles outbreaks in school can be understood as a biological symptom connected to a group of individuals who shared—either collectively or separately and individually—a separation distress. The symptoms appear only after the individuals resolve their distress. Even if the individuals’ conflicts are completely unrelated to each other, it is potentially the case that when one person resolves their own psyche-brain-organ distress and presents with healingphase symptoms, others with similar conflicts may be biologically inspired to resolve their own psyche-brain-organ conflict distress. This connects to the idea of nervous system resonance and synchronization—where people sharing space together tend to sync their biological processes.
Let’s consider a chickenpox party. Insofar as it leads to another child acquiring symptoms, we can now cast this phenomenon within the light of the psyche, brain and organ process. The second child must have a lesion in the brain acquired from their own separation conflict— perhaps they were scared to “touch” or “get” “chicken pox,” and the parents’ plans were a “conflicting” source of distress for the child (that’s only one potential scenario). In any case, the rash appears only after the child’s conflict is resolved from the brain.
Considering the idea of nervous system resonance and synchronization, if this child participating in the party has a completely unrelated separation conflict (something sourced from difficulties with siblings at home, perhaps), he or she may be inspired to resolve this conflict owing to the biological resonance acquired by the shared presence of the other child who is currently expressing post conflict resolution symptoms of his or her own distress—a distress which he or she successfully overcame in life. Subconsciously, one person’s “biological triumph” over conflict can inspire others with similar conflicts.
“Biological” Conflicts
In German New Medicine, doctors and practitioners define the subjective shocking experience as a “biological” conflict shock, in order to highlight the deeper nature of these conflicts which are based in survival and biological necessities. If we look at the steady decline in all-cause mortality from diseases over the 20th century in the United States, one major explanation is quite simply the rising standard of living. Shifting from pre-industrial poverty to post-industrial affluence and new technological resources, the “biological” conflicts, of the past were becoming far fewer in number and far easier to resolve. “Starvation fears,” for example, became far less frequent and easier to address (now that people possessed refrigeration, electricity, imports, etc.) Conversely, we can observe how wars and socio-political conflicts lead to spikes in disease, by understanding that they inevitably cause far greater numbers of “biological” conflicts in people. Interestingly, it was in 1918, after the first World War was finally showing signs of peace, that the so-called 1918 influenza “outbreak” began. Here we can see how the post-conflict healing phase can occur in large numbers of people when people share the same conflict, and when that conflict collectively resolves. The disease at this time was most predominantly a respiratory disease, the biological conflict of which corresponds to a “territorial fear of aggression.” Due to the length and intensity of this conflict of aggression, many people’s respiratory systems required intensive healing.
A Necessary Paradigm Shift From Mechanistic Thinking
The bottom line here is that there are indeed mechanistic causes of disease—poisoning, radiation, injury, starvation—and then there are fundamentally different, “nonmechanistic” diseases explained by the psyche-brain-organ model. The mechanistic paradigm, so valid and true for understanding the classical diseases that arise from material causes, is simultaneously a disastrous paradigm for understanding the “other” diseases that do not originate from material variables—diseases that include many so-called “infections,” inflammations, cancers, and more.
An emerging paradigm shift out of a limited mechanistic worldview is underway, which involves learning how to think about many diseases in a non-mechanistic way. Rather than trying to understand the “thing” that “causes” these diseases, we instead try to understand that these diseases are biologically different; they are not “caused” by material entities, but are actually one and the same with a subjective perception of distress. In other words, a subjective perception of distress is the disease itself. The disease is just the biological expression of a psyche-level perception of distress that we have to adapt to and then heal from after it is resolved.
I often ask people who are reluctant to consider the validity of these discoveries what they think about the objectively measurable lesion in the brain, which corresponds in each case to a precise diagnosable condition in the corresponding organ of the body. Usually their answer is anything but a coherent thought, but more of an excuse to avoid the question entirely!
Nevertheless, the science of our day is evolving. With this, it becomes more and more obvious that the forefront of human culture, and the future of our species no less, rests upon the implementation of a new, valid healthcare paradigm.
Rather than calling it a “placebo effect” we can begin to refer to it as the natural and predictable healing power that comes through precise conflict resolution and renewed hope. Reinstating hope and the individual’s resolve to find and express health is the essential calling of all doctors who desire to “heal.”
If we do not gain an understanding and control over the question of health—one that elicits peace rather than hysteria—then we will be driven again and again into the confinements of panic and stringent controls that enforce inhuman measures. What we need now, perhaps more than ever, is a conscious recognition of the psyche-brain-organ basis of health and a pragmatic action-based network that works to provide each other the real antidote to “disease.” And it’s not a vaccine or any other material intervention (for the majority of cases).
Rather, this antidote can be seen as the application of an emerging science—a workable knowledge—of what we had previously considered to be a mysterious “placebo effect.” Rather than calling it a “placebo effect,” we can begin to refer to it as the natural and predictable healing power that comes through precise conflict resolution and renewed hope.
It’s no longer a mystery why someone with a disease finds miraculous healing with such hope. It’s because the disease in question is not simply a materialistic consequence of some “particular” microscopic process originating out of the depths of the cells, but is rather a macroscopic reflection of the individual’s subjective perception of distress that has yet to find adequate and complete resolution.
Reinstating hope and the individual’s resolve to find and express health is the essential calling of all doctors who desire to “heal.” Yet, somehow, we have allowed our loving doctors to become franchise servants for a myopically biased industry, and we have allowed the doctor’s honorable position to be dominated by the legal chains of those at the top of the industry who are just eager to obtain more and more power, authority, and control.
The separation of church and state was a major breakthrough in history, assuring that power was not abused by religious institutions. How about a separation of state authority from the honorable position of the medical doctoring profession, so that doctors—who desire to spark the sacred fuse of health, and who desire to do this skillfully and reliably—can be liberated to achieve their aim.
I think this horizon is upon us. But not if we continue to wait any longer for a savior to rescue us. But only if we work to activate the power from within, together for each other and for the future.
