|
|
WHAT SHOULD ONE DO FOR CONDITION "X"?
It has been commonplace for patients, students and chiropractors to inquire of me:
|
|
"Dr. Goldberg, what would you do for a patient with (rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis, multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease, infertility, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, diabetes or other titles for disease classifications)."
My reply is simple:
"I would perform on the patient: a thorough case history, a thorough physical examination, appropriate laboratory and/or radiological studies, based on the case history and physical examination."
"What if it was heart disease?" they ask.
Again, I reply,
"A thorough case history, a thorough physical examination, appropriate laboratory and/or radiological studies, based on the case history and physical examination.
"But Dr. Goldberg," they ask, now frustrated, "what if it was cancer?"
Again, I reply:
"A thorough case history, a thorough physical examination, appropriate laboratory and/or radiological studies, based on the case history and physical examination."
It is only by taking the time to thoroughly complete these three steps that we learn the patient's individual traits, the hereditary and internal factors at play, the environmental factors and how all these factors interact.
A similar question received is: "What laboratory studies should be conducted on a patient with diabetes, lupus, multiple sclerosis, etc.?"
This decision should be based on the patient's case history, physical examination and the individual traits that these investigations expose in that person.
|
Based on the information gathered, along with consideration of the patient's desires, appropriate measures can be taken.
The course of action should always be based on these findings, not on the disease category which the patient had upon entering the office.
The allopathic diagnostic model has some limited utility. When we read about a medically categorized disease and what its outcome tends to be, we are informed what the natural history of the syndrome is under medical care, with the average patient.
I was first introduced to the term "natural history of disease" while I was enrolled in a graduate school course in the mid-1970s at the University of Texas. The course reviewed a number of disease conditions, how they presented and how they evolved in the average person. The medical treatment of the problems was a minor aspect of discussion, while emphasis on the history, distribution, signs, symptoms and evolution of the diseases was emphasized. My natural hygiene perspective on health and disease differed from the medical doctor teaching the course, but I respected his experience and found the course informative and insightful.
The natural history is based on the clinical observations of numerous people who presented over the years with similar signs and symptoms and received similar treatments (or in the purist sense of "natural history of a disease," no treatments at all).
An understanding can be gained by viewing this as to how patients with these signs and symptoms generally respond to allopathic care and standard living habits. We are thereby informed of the patient's outcome, under a standard regimen of what is commonly composed of drugs and standard living habits of processed foods, chlorinated water, polluted air and stressful lifestyle.
The many allopathic disease entities with dismal prognoses are evidence of the failures of allopathic medicine with most conditions (particularly the chronic degenerative diseases).
|
|
Reason warrants, however, not to accept these often dismal natural histories as being the only possible outcomes, but rather the likely outcomes under allopathic care and conventional living habits.
The many allopathic disease entities with dismal prognoses for the patient are evidence of the failures of allopathic medicine with much of the population with most conditions (particularly the chronic degenerative diseases).
It is also an indictment of the manner in which most live in this culture.
There is value, nonetheless, in studying the natural history of disease, because it shows both patient and clinician what the likely outcome is under conventional care and an unhygienic manner for most of the disease conditions in our culture. ("Unhygienic" pertains to our lifestyle habits, such as diet, air, lack of rest and sleep, too little or too much activity, lack of sunshine, lack of mental and spiritual pose, inharmonious work and home environments, etc.)
In our case study records at the Goldberg Clinic, we keep patient testimonial letters, along with independent laboratory studies (sedimentation rates, blood chemistries, etc.) to document the improvements in clients.
It is important to produce objective evidence of clinical successes (or failures) experienced with clients to validate the outcomes with our clients to others, including health professionals, perspective patients, and the public at large.
The studies conducted are through independent laboratories. Testimonial letters written by patients include their full names or are not used. These laboratory records and patient letters attest to the common sense approach of implementing a natural hygienic approach specific to the background and individual needs of each patient.
Two sets of case studies, one regarding two patients diagnosed with "psoriatic arthritis" and the other showing two patients medically diagnosed with "rheumatoid arthritis," will exemplify the concepts discussed above in regard to diagnostic categorizations and biochemical individuality.
It is important to produce objective evidence of clinical successes (or failures) to validate the outcomes with our clients to others, including health professionals and the public at large.
|
|
Continued here with case studies.
|
|
