For more than two decades the orthodox healthcare establishment has vigorously attacked the scientific basis, efficacy and safety of the diverse range of modalities befitting approaches that are commonly placed under the banner of that is commonly referred to as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
Simultaneously, the CAM community, the natural products industry, health
freedom organizations and large numbers of consumers and protagonists of CAM,
have argued that these attacks are unjustified and have reciprocated by exposing the
apparent lack of efficacy and poor safety record of orthodox healthcare. These
differences of opinion are so deep‐seated that the polarity between the two
contrasting approaches has become increasingly reinforced. The relative lack of
resources within the CAM community, the natural products industry and the health
freedom movement, by comparison with the pharmaceutical industry and orthodox
medical system which it supports, means that it is by and large proving very difficult
to improve the acceptability of CAM modalities in mainstream healthcare.
All the available indicators suggest that orthodox healthcare, which is dominated by
interventions with new‐to‐nature pharmaceutical drugs, is not sustainable. ‘Evidence based
medicine’ (EBM) is increasingly being used both as a means of justifying
pharmaceutical intervention as the world’s dominant approach to healthcare and its
ever‐wider application to discredit or even outlaw particular CAM approaches.
(“See Ionic Colloidal Silver”)
The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) proposes that the application of the principles
of sustainability to healthcare may be one of the most effective ways of altering the
perception of established and emerging CAM modalities from the vantage point of
government authorities and the current medical establishment. In addition, such an
approach could significantly assist a transition in mainstream healthcare that is
characterized by improved take up of biologically compatible modalities, as found
within CAM. Such a transition would, among other things, allow for much greater use
of preventative approaches, especially among children, young adults and non diseased
sub‐populations, better diagnosis of disease, widespread adoption of
lifestyle and nutrition‐based approaches, greatly reduced dependence on new‐to nature
medications and marked changes in medical training. With the identification
of scientifically established criteria for sustainability in healthcare, only those
approaches meeting the criteria stipulated would be accepted.

Sustainability has become one of the key technological drivers in a range of other
industries where social or environmental degradation has been implicated, and it is
incongruous that the principles of sustainability have yet to be applied to healthcare.
The ANH, together with its affiliates and strategic partners, is well set to facilitate the
transition towards more sustainable and biologically compatible systems of
healthcare. The transition will require improved allocation of funding of independent
research in academic institutions, extensive public and government‐targeted
awareness campaigns and the establishment of scientifically monitored pilot
programmes designed to demonstrate both feasibility and sustainability.

A transition towards sustainability would also help to eliminate the existing polarity
between orthodox healthcare and CAM approaches and would inevitably prefer
those approaches that function harmoniously with biological systems and human
metabolism, rather than those that oppose them. Accordingly, more sophisticated
systems of risk/benefit analysis, probably based around the emerging field of
decision science and cybernetics, will be required to better inform decision‐making.

Our alienation from nature

One of the most profound lifestyle transitions to have occurred since the ‘industrial
revolution’ has been the alienation of humankind from nature. Most of us,
particularly in the industrialized world, consume diets that are increasingly
dissociated from those with which we have evolved as a species. Many of us express
a wide range of intolerances, allergies and sensitivities to food and food ingredients
in response to this. These foods and our increasingly sedentary, indoor lifestyles are
now the two factors most responsible for chronic diseases such as cardiovascular
disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes, which are not only the leading causes of our
death, but also place the greatest burden on our healthcare system.
We are surrounded by synthetic substances, in our homes, in the clothes we wear
and in the air we breathe. We walk on cement pavements and isolate our feet from
the earth through the rubber soles of our shoes or the tires of our cars.
Our species has become ever more dissociated from the animals and plants with
which we share our world, most people’s limited knowledge of nature coming
not from personal experience of it, but from what they have learned in school
or from a television screen.

Our minds are taken up, so much of the time, by things that keep us in a status quo
with our industrialized world, with our financial systems and in social communities or
‘nuclear’ families that are increasingly dysfunctional or fragmented. We may be living
a few years longer that we did a hundred or so years ago, but most of us do it with
the burden of increasing sickness and disability.
In our attempt to recover our health, the majority of our population are reliant on a
healthcare system that is dominated by the use of patented pharmaceutical drugs,
the likes of which human bodies and cells have never been exposed, save for in the
last few decades.

Putting this into evolutionary perspective, if we liken the evolution of the human
species over the last half a million years to a 24‐hour clock, it is less than a tenth of a
second ago that we have seen the development of the petrochemical industry in the
post‐WWII period. It is this industry that has, in turn, spawned the pharmaceutical,
chemical and agro‐chemical industries that have become such dominant industrial
forces in today’s world.

1.2 The evolution of healthcare

For many thousands of years we managed our health by controlling our alignment

and interaction with nature as well as, for many, by calling on, for sake of a better

term, spiritual energies. The knowledge born out of centuries of successes and

failures, of trial and error, was passed down, generation to generation, allowing for

steady evolution of these healthcare systems. Some of these great healthcare

traditions are still alive today in various parts of the world, while many have become

extinct. Surviving traditions include Ayurveda, Unani, Traditional Chinese Medicine,

and a multitude of diverse healthcare traditions still existent in Japan, South‐East

Asia, southern Africa, South America and elsewhere. Many of these still rely on mind body‐

spirit interactions, but owing to the complexity of these interactions, such

approaches have not been particularly amenable to evaluation by evidence‐based

medicine (EBM) so have been largely rejected by orthodox healthcare. Because of

this, these traditions are now more under threat than at any other time in their


Various elements of these traditions have been incorporated into a large range of

modalities which are commonly positioned under the complementary and alternative

medicine (CAM) umbrella. The modalities include nutritional and phyto nutrient

therapies, acupuncture and acupressure, herbal medicine, homeopathy, energy

medicine, aromatherapy, as well as a wide range of massage traditions and

manipulative therapies. Nutritional medicine or therapy, although a more recent

development, is often considered as a CAM modality despite nutrition and dietetics

being acknowledged branches of orthodox medicine.

In the minds of many, healthcare is now subject to a duality, in which the multitude

of options have been whittled down to two categories or options: ‘orthodox

medicine’ and CAM. Of these, orthodox medicine has become by far the dominant

system in the majority of the world and is often the only form of healthcare taught to

those to whom many of us entrust the management of our health, namely



2.1 How sustainable is orthodox medicine?

Never before have so many drugs been used in an attempt to re‐establish health and

wellbeing in human beings. Americans on average make over 1.1 billions visits to

physicians or hospital outpatients departments annually, amounting to an average of

around 3.8 visits per person.1 About 65% of all patient visits to physicians result in

drugs being prescribed.2 Over 3 billion prescriptions are filled each year,3 averaging

around 10 prescriptions for every person in the USA annually. With an average cost

of $54.34 per prescription in 2007,4 the annual cost of these prescriptions is about

US$165 billion, the equivalent of $550 for every American each year. Adverse drug

reactions (ADRs), which increase exponentially in those taking 4 or more different

medications,5 are now the fourth leading cause of death in the USA,6 putting them in

front of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents, and motor vehicle

deaths. It has been estimated that in the UK, adverse drug reactions cost the

country’s National Health Service £2 billion (US$3.9 billion) annually. A recent

Swedish study has revealed that 3% of Swedes die from adverse drug reactions,

making them the seventh most common cause of death in the country.9

In the USA, if the estimated 98,000 deaths associated with preventable medical and

surgical injuries in hospitals,10 as well as the estimated 90,000 deaths associated with

preventable infections in hospitals11 are added to the estimated 106,000 deaths fromADRs which follow the non‐error prescription of medications,6 orthodox medicine is

unequivocally the third leading cause of death in the USA. The situation appears

similar in most other western countries.

Aside from their deleterious effects, a mere 13% of drugs are known to have

beneficial effects,12 while Dr Allen Roses, vice president of genetics for one of the

world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, GlaxoSmithKline, admitted in 2003 that:

“…the vast majority of drugs ‐ more than 90 per cent ‐ only work in 30 or 50 per cent

of the people”.

Overall, there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that orthodox or allopathic medicine

has had very limited success in dealing with the major disease burdens, namely the

chronic diseases that play havoc with the over‐50s, being cancer, being heart disease,

obesity, diabetes and osteoporosis. Additionally, there is a very high price to be paid

for western medicine, both in terms of economic cost and the cost of human

suffering. Finally, most attempts by mainstream healthcare to avert or reduce the

rate of morbidity in our ageing populations have been little more than ancillary in

their effect.

Based on an appraisal of cost (human, environmental and financial) and the resultant

benefits, as well as cost and challenges facing the development of new drugs, as well

as the lack of success of drug‐based approaches in dealing with chronic diseases, it is

very difficult to consider that orthodox medicine might meet any reasonable

definition of sustainability.

The principle of sustainability

Sustainability has been defined in many different ways, in different contexts. Most

definitions refer one way or another to those approaches that provide the best

outcomes for the human and natural environments both now and into the indefinite

future. Sustainability relates to the continuity of social, environmental, economic and

institutional aspects of human society, as well as to all aspects of the non‐human


The word sustainability (Nachhaltigkeit in German) was used for the first time in

1712 by the German forester and scientist Hannss Carl von Carlowitz in his book

Sylvicultura Oeconomica. Since this time the term has been used extensively in a

wide array of different contexts.
In 1995, the World Summit on Social Development defined the term as “the

framework for our efforts to achieve a higher quality of life for all people”, in which

“economic development, social development and environmental protection are

interdependent and mutually reinforcing components”’.

Most of us are very familiar with the application of the principles of sustainability to

international development issues, to the energy industry, to forestry and even to

agriculture. In agriculture, some would argue that organic and biodynamic farming

are subsets of the sustainable agriculture. Organic farming principles are already

being diluted by pressure from large agri‐business interests, as seen in recent

guidelines by the Codex Alimentarius Commission on organically produced foods.

These guidelines are at odds with the principles appreciated as early as the mid twentieth

century by a group of British farmers, scientists and nutritionists who

recognized the importance of soil health and fertility and the direct connection

between farming practice and plant, animal, human and environmental health. This

group went on to establish the Soil Association in 1946 – a body that has since been

at the forefront of triggering the agricultural revolution that has seen organic food

become probably the most socially and environmentally responsible option in

agricultural production available.

Today, however, it is possible for foods to be certified organic, whilst not adhering to

the principles of sustainability. Increasing amounts of organic food found in major

multiples and supermarkets in western countries, much of it carrying very high ‘air

miles’, could hardly be regarded as organic, yet it meets the certification

requirements because the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers have been

avoided during its cultivation or production. Organic farming protagonists, including

the Soil Association, are increasingly pushing for a return to sustainable, organic

principles based on the development and maintenance of soil fertility and health.

Based on these experiences, and the clear evidence that industry will pay lip service

to a concept and exploit any ‘wriggle room’ left through weaknesses, ambiguity or

poor drafting of principles, it is now feasible to develop principles and criteria to

tightly define sustainability in relation to healthcare.

2.3 The growth of the health freedom movement

There is a common desire among many people in different parts of the world to

protect any further erosion of CAM and the use of natural products that are often

associated. This desire may emanate from an intrinsic or genetic need in humans to

re‐connect with nature. The first health freedom organization established worldwide

was the National Health Federation which was established in the

USA in 1955. The American Association of Health Freedom was formed in 1992

following a raid by the Food & Drug Administration on Dr Jonathan Wright’s Tahoma Clinic, well known for its use of nutritional and natural therapies to deal with major

diseases such as cancer. The ANH was formed in 2002, initially as a means of

preventing bans on hundreds of natural forms of vitamins and minerals by the

European Commission, using an approach referred to as ‘good science and good law’.

It is now formally affiliated with AAHF, and is engaged in helping to promote ‘natural

health’ worldwide. There are presently over 20 non‐governmental organizations

worldwide that can loosely be described as health freedom organizations and as a

group, they constitute—what has become known as—the ‘health freedom

movement’. The movement is supported particularly by hundreds of thousands of

health‐conscious consumers and citizens around the world with concerns over

threats to natural health issued by the medical establishment, the pharmaceutical

industry, biased scientists and an often biased media. The primary purposes of the

movement is to help protect and promote natural health, to defend the diverse

range of modalities that constitute CAM in the face of attacks by the orthodox

medical establishment and related interests, and to expose weaknesses of

pharmaceutically‐based, allopathic approaches to medicine.

The health freedom movement, although continuing to grow, is nevertheless quite

fragmented. The more cohesive elements of it tend to work in collaboration with

those sectors of the natural products industry committed to the development,

marketing and sale of therapeutic health products. The health freedom movement

parallels, in many respects, the environmental movement, although it lags behind

some two or so decades. It has, we believe, the potential to expand and grow in

credibility to a level equivalent to that of the environmental movement.

Some of the major constraints acting to limit the development of the health freedom

movement include:

Inadequate resources, both financial and human

Lack of adequate scientific, medical and legal support

Regular attacks from the modern medicine establishment, the

pharmaceutical industry, some academics and elements of the media

The ANH proposes that the adoption of the concept of sustainable healthcare

by the existing health freedom movement could lead to substantially

improved effectiveness, cohesiveness and collaboration. It would likely go a long

way to preventing limited resources being squandered on many of the present

campaigns that have sometimes done little more than reinforce the divide between

CAM and orthodox medicine. It would also focus the movement’s attention on

healthcare generally, focusing on positive transition, rather than on the exposure of

problems that inevitably triggers further attacks against the movement. In addition,

the promotion of sustainable healthcare could potentially enable the health

freedom movement to gain support from organizations that, whilst already

promoting the application of sustainability to issues such as the environment,

energy and agriculture, are not currently engaging on healthcare issues. Possible

examples of such organizations would include Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

By fostering this approach, its protagonists among the health freedom movement

will be likely to be viewed more seriously and sympathetically by governments, in

turn continuing to grow the credibility and influence of the movement.

2.4 Why sustainable approaches to healthcare are needed

Many of us recognize some of the limitations or deficiencies in terms like

‘complementary, ‘alternative’ and ‘integrated’ when applied to healthcare. Although

CAM protagonists might clearly appreciate what is meant by these terms – they are

open to abuse or they may be interpreted as suggesting that such forms of

healthcare or medicine are to be practiced as an adjunct to allopathic medicine. This

is obviously not always the case.

One of the biggest constraints of allopathic medicine relates to the over‐reliance on

new‐to‐nature molecules as therapeutic agents. ‘Natural

healthcare’ is a term that is sometimes used to refer to healthcare interventions

using natural products or to those approaches that operate compatibly or

harmoniously with the human body and with the environment. However, natural

healthcare approaches, in these terms, are not necessarily sustainable. By example, if

a corporation were to ravage a rainforest in order to harvest a particular herb that

was known for its therapeutic properties, this resultant agent would indeed be

natural, but the approach would hardly be sustainable.

The ANH first defined the concept of ‘sustainable healthcare’ in 2006. The definition

was as follows: The ANH has commenced working with a range of experts, doctors and scientists to help develop criteria for sustainability in healthcare. Through its international

Scientific and Medical Advisory Board, the ANH is also working towards publishing


A complex system of interacting approaches to the

restoration, management and optimization of human

health that have an ecological base, that are

environmentally, economically and socially viable

indefinitely, that work harmoniously both with the

human body and the non‐human environment, and

which do not result in unfair or disproportionate

impacts on any significant contributory element of the

healthcare system.

‐ Alliance for Natural Health

(Nutrition Practitioner, 2006)
Concepts, ideas and research on sustainable approaches to healthcare in the peer reviewed


Just as the notion of ‘sustainable agriculture’ provides the overriding principles that

are embodied by ‘organic farming’ or ‘biodynamic farming’, ‘sustainable healthcare’

‘or ‘biocompatible healthcare’ offer overriding principles that should be met by all

those approaches to healthcare that are to be deemed as sustainable and biologically

compatible. The term ‘sustainable healthcare’ is not intended to replace existing

approaches and delivery systems for healthcare, nor does it automatically exclude

licensed, synthetic therapeutic agents, which may range from synthetic vitamin C to

more complex synthetic molecules.

Central to any selection of approaches that befit the concepts of sustainability and

biocompatibility is appropriate risk/benefit analysis. The ANH has already

demonstrated the failings of risk‐based approaches as they relate to

micronutrients,15 and it has given detailed justification of why risk/benefit

approaches are required. Owing to the complexity of the decision making processes, further complicated by the immense diversity of the human genome, it is likely that such approaches will emerge from the fields of decision science and cybernetics.

It seems likely that approaches to healthcare that presently meet the relatively new

branch of medicine that is described as ‘functional medicine’17, will quite comfortably

meet the criteria for ‘sustainable healthcare’. ‘Environmental’ or ‘ecological

medicine’18, seen by some as a branch of functional medicine, as well as the vast

majority of modalities presently included under the CAM umbrella, would also be

likely to meet the requirements for sustainability.

On wide acceptance of the concept of sustainable healthcare, it may be appropriate

to develop, as in the case of agricultural or energy sustainability, systems of

certification or authentication for those approaches that meet its criteria.

Sustainable healthcare provides a potentially powerful handle with which to help

stimulate the much needed sea change in healthcare. Governments, which have

been very receptive to the principles of sustainability as they relate to other

industries, are likely to find the use of sustainability criteria of assistance in

developing healthcare policies. Criticism and attack of the concept by the orthodox

medical establishment may be limited given that the corollary of the concept is

systems of healthcare that are unsustainable.

2.5 Some criteria for sustainable healthcare

Following are some of the key criteria and factors that are proposed as a means of

achieving sustainability in healthcare:

Quality of Life evaluation

One of the major challenges in evaluating the costs and benefits of a particular

regimen or strategy in healthcare, is the attribution, for the sake of comparison, of a

common currency that relates to both cost (risk) and benefit. The use of ‘qualityadjusted

life years’ (QALYs) and ‘disability‐adjusted life years’ (DALYs) are emerging as

among the most robust approaches to the evaluation of healthcare interventions.19

Such evaluations should be applied to a diverse range of healthcare strategies as a

matter of urgency, including non‐drug, nutritional, and lifestyle approaches, to allow

their direct comparison with conventional, drug‐based interventions. Of particular

importance is the evaluation of disease prevention strategies which prioritize

ecologically‐based lifestyle approaches including healthy eating (including minimal

consumption of processed foods and food additives), reduced environmental chemical

and harmful microwave and low‐frequency electromagnetic radiation exposure,

physical exercise and relaxation. Such evaluations need to be undertaken within a

diverse range of socio‐economic groupings.

Genomics in sustainable healthcare

Today, in the fields of genomics and epigenomics, we see the rapid development of a

branch of science that evaluates the genetic and environmental elements that

interact to make us fully human. While the Human Genome Project had revealed by

2003 the structure of the code that defines human life, we still know very little about

the meaning of the code, and just how the genome of each individual interacts with

the world around us. Understanding the inner workings of the genome is likely to take

us beyond existing concepts of EBM, allowing us to see the human as more than just a

highly complex machine. Many have thus far seen the rapidly expanding science of

genomics primarily as a vehicle to facilitate tailored drug development

(pharmacogenetics) for cancer, heart disease and other chronic diseases. However, it

is likely that further elucidation of the genome’s complex interactions with the

natural environment, including with foods and nutrients with which our evolution has

been intimately involved for millennia, will in time bring further credence and

popularity to more sustainable nutrient and natural product based preventative and

curative healthcare strategies.

Health monitoring

Any sustainable healthcare system is likely to require that markers for health and

wellbeing are monitored regularly. A wide variety of functional tests are already

available and are used routinely by practitioners of functional and ecological

medicine,21 but such diagnostic tests are rarely used by conventionally‐trained doctors

and health practitioners given that disease prevention or early diagnosis of pre‐clinical

conditions is in the main not currently prioritized.

Personal responsibility, engagement, equality and incentive

Western healthcare provides little incentive for personal engagement, despite

recognition that engagement by the individual is key to a properly functioning

healthcare, rather than disease management, system. Unhealthy lifestyles and

diets are commonplace, and the existing medical paradigm presently dictates that it is

usually only when a disease or disorder presents itself that professional support is

sought. In the dominant allopathic model, the patient typically takes little

responsibility for his or her health, other than following the advice of the medical

doctor to which responsibility has been delegated. In the majority of consultations

with doctors, one or more medications are prescribed (see above). In any sustainable

system, individual engagement and responsibility is essential. The healthcare system

needs to be structured as far as possible to avoid inequalities created by such factors

as socio‐economic circumstances, early life experiences, geography and ethnicity.

Methods of incentivizing individual responsibility could be devised, such as by the

provision of insurance schemes that offered no claims bonuses for those who have

maintained their health and wellbeing, within the limits of their genetic potential,

through healthy living. An analogous system is, after all, almost universally used by

insurers of motor vehicles, which provides the incentive to avoid making claims.

Whole body healthcare

Any sustainable system needs to abide by ecological principles, yet these cannot be

applied if the body is viewed, as is currently the case from the perspective of the

existing western medical paradigm, as a construct of individual sub‐units or

compartments which work together in a manner that is little different from a highly

complex machine. While Eastern and other traditions have always tended to abide by

whole body and holistic principles, these approaches have been accepted mainly

within the CAM world and have yet to receive sufficient acceptance by the mainstream

medical community. The continued evolution of inter‐disciplinary and multidisciplinary

medicine is likely to modify this view in due course. The recent

development of psycho neuro endocrinology, which now has a dedicated journal in its

name, is an expression of this, as is the increasing interest in Chinese and Ayurvedic

medical systems among mainstream medical universities in the West.

Environmental sustainability

Any sustainable healthcare system must be friendly to the biotic and abiotic

environment within which it exists, both locally and further afield. Presently, the

seriousness and extensive nature of ADRs on humans, the pollution of waterways by

pharmaceuticals and the pillaging of indigenous knowledge and products from

rainforests and other natural environments24 are just some examples that are

indicative that sustainability of the existing, dominant paradigm is a far cry. There are

also significant concerns as to the environmental sustainability of supply of some

herbs, fish and krill oils and other natural products supplied by the natural products

industry. The wider use of validated sustainability certification marks will undoubtedly

help to drive demand away from unsustainable sources of natural products. More

balanced and ecologically‐based cost/benefit systems of evaluation are urgently

required to better evaluate the true cost of any given healthcare intervention or

regimen, as well as helping in the selection of more appropriate ones.

Education and training

A radical redevelopment of curricula for healthcare professionals is required, especially

in the case of medical doctors, nurses and pharmacists. In addition, because of the

need in any sustainable model to emphasize prevention, especially in the young,

additional training of specific healthcare professionals would be required. These would

need to be specialized particularly in the field of wellbeing management, where

primary tools would involve nutrition and diet, exercise, relaxation and other aspects

of lifestyle.

Healthcare facilities

Presently most healthcare facilities are designed as places for the treatment or

management of disease. In a sustainable healthcare system, although hospitals, clinics

and other disease treatment centers would still be required, healthcare facilities with a

specific focus on health monitoring and nutritional and lifestyle education, perhaps

better described as ‘wellness centers’, would also be needed to ensure effective and

long‐term adherence to healthy living approaches.


Sustainability is a robust concept that has proven its worth across a range of different

industries including energy, agriculture, forestry and even construction and tourism.

Contemporary healthcare in western countries is presently dominated by use of

pharmaceutical drugs – and most indicators would suggest that these approaches

have had very limited value in dealing with some of the greatest scourges facing

human health, including chronic diseases, psychiatric diseases and even certain

infectious diseases. From a cost/benefit perspective, pharmaceutical‐based

approaches to healthcare do not fare favorably and a sea change is required if

mainstream western healthcare is to deal with the ever increasing burden on the

healthcare system, particularly given that this burden will be exacerbated by an

ageing population.

The dichotomy between CAM and orthodox/allopathic healthcare approaches has

led to increased vilification of protagonists of each approach. The use of scientific

methods of evaluation that do not lend themselves well to CAM approaches have

meant that the ‘medical establishment’ has been able to increasingly marginalize

CAM approaches. This has occurred while the establishment has provided no

significant improvement in its offering to the majority of the population that is either

forced to accept or choose to accept pharmaceutical‐based medicine as the most

effective and scientifically‐validated form of medicine.

Encouraging a paradigm25 shift that requires all forms of healthcare to be bound by

principles of sustainability and biocompatibility is likely to be one of the surest means

of providing a level playing field for all healthcare modalities. The adoption of

sustainable healthcare will greatly encourage preventative approaches to healthcare,

those that are based on nutrition and lifestyle changes, and those that are

intrinsically compatible with biological systems, both within and outside the body.

A paradigm is defined as by the Oxford English dictionary as “A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an

intellectual discipline”.

This time, the compound “paradigm shift” has been stressed out properly. I hope this article gave you a wider vision of the things to come, considering actions to be taken to build a better world. Uniting sciences, medicines, and memories of the past traditions, respecting them, and working together, an health care system based on insight, vision, intuition, spiritual attitudes, and common sense, could overcome patent limitations made, fundamentally, to enrich private companies that run these kinds of commercial goods, or products, that substantially find their market in weak strata of society, unable to chose, or even give any advice, through their own experience, to those specialists that know exactly what they are doing. Only re introducing the principle of responsibility, and vulnerability of companies that nowadays act in total tranquility, being immune from any kind of accusations, concerning eventual misdeeds or consequences of their mistakes, medicines would become much safer, simpler and functional. Immunity cannot be granted anymore to those private or public institutions that own monopolies or oligopolies, without being defined, located geographically, economically positioned into a specific context, and personally involved, ( as they usually give the fault of a problem to a well paid clerk ) in such a way that anytime something goes wrong, the chief executive and the owner of the factory would be called to answer and to explain what happened, in such a way, that carefulness would be the principle, good intentions and scrupulous attitude. Common sense does not need regulations or laws to be practiced. Everybody knows what’s right or wrong. Let’s just practice life the best we can. Money doesn’t buy happiness, but love can cure any illness. It is time to face the truth. The only principle to follow is to unite knowledge and traditions in such a way, that prejudice will end. Tolerance and understanding are the basic principles of the new era. Through consciousness and awareness, participating, and being in empathy, with others, we will be able to face future challenges. In the faith of love act truly, and you will benefit of the treasures of the world.

by Amonakur