The brilliant Polish philosopher and scientist, Rudolph Carl Virchow, first theorized in the mid-1800's that all disease came from abnormalities of cell division. Time, research, and the human experience have largely validated his theory.
“CellVie“ is the philosophy that drives infusion based health support. By delivering essential, life-supporting micro nutrients and supplements directly to the cells, we believe that cellular health can be enhanced, and by cultivating healthy cells we believe that healthy people can become more vibrant, more resilient to disease, more energetic, and less likely to succumb to heart disease, dementia, cancer, and other catastrophic events. We also believe that individuals suffering conditions that corrode their quality-of-life can improve their health and their well-being by addressing cellular vitality with infusion-based therapies.
The Medical Reformation
In the dark ages, people were unable to read what was written in the Bible. It simply wasn’t available. Bibles had to be copied by hand, therefore they were rare commodities not available to the masses. In addition, the hierarchy of the church felt that if the lay public could ever read the Bible, it would confuse and mislead them. Simply put, they were too stupid ignorant and easily influenced and therefore they could not be trusted to read the Bible. It had to be interpreted for them by a higher power, namely the clergy.
This power imbalance favored the church enormously. They could interpret the Bible however they felt, and not concern themselves with difficult questions or scrutiny from the public at large. This contributed to the consolidation of power and wealth into the hands of church leaders. The power and wealth thus accumulated motivated those benefiting from the status quo to reinforce its legitimacy and oppose anyone who sought to question the way things were.
Several forces came together to change this dynamic. With the invention of the Gutenberg press (circa 1440), reproduction of the Bible became affordable thereby making copies more widely available to the literate population. The church attempted to contain the burgeoning access to information by the way public. In 1487 Pope innocent VIII issued his declaration of censorship requiring all publications to be pre-approved by the church. Martin Luther challenged many of the more questionable practices of the Church which triggered a popular uprising. At first the church vigorously defended its position and its authority. However, the tide of history was moving against it. Over the centuries it has come to acknowledge its own suppressive tendencies and its own misinterpretations that did damage to the public and harmed the lives and careers of individuals. One of the most notable individuals harmed by the church was Galileo. In 1616 the church declared that he was forbidden from holding or defending his belief that the earth revolves around the sun. They held it as irrefutable dogma that the earth was the center of the universe and that everything revolves around it. Galileo defended himself by stating he was merely opening up inquiry and study. However, by 1633 he was found guilty of heresy and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. 300 years later his conviction was overturned by the church.
Now let us compare that time in history to the one that we are currently living in.
Modern medicine has created its own language. It has generated its own “Bibles.” In fact, many of the most respected medical works often are referred to within the profession as a Bible. To challenge its dogma is to invite scorn and ridicule, to be dubbed a medical heretic and to risk censure.
Then came the Internet. Much like the Gutenberg press, it has made access to medical information available to the masses. With the click of a button any well-educated lay person can have access to the same articles that their doctors, and their sub-specialist are also reading. Motivated and intellectually curious healthcare professionals such as some primary care doctors now had access to efficiently study medical treatment options on behalf of their patients. The dependence on sub-specialists for their unique fund of knowledge is no longer so compelling.
At the same time as access to information has expanded, medicine has become consolidated. It is now organizing itself into 'vertically integrated' corporate structures. These structures are better at implementing established patterns of care, than exploring individualized approaches to treatment.
This combination of forces has led to a medical reformation. Individuals are now researching their symptoms and their disease. They are reading medical articles; they are sharing information on the Internet. They are asking difficult questions of their doctors, and they are redefining their own perception of health. No longer is the absence of disease considered the equivalent of good health. Patients are seeking vitality. They are seeking ways to change the manner in which traditional aging has occurred. They are seeking approaches to manage the “garbage bucket“ realms of Medicine.
Just like the impact of Martin Luther's reformation, the power structures that have most benefited from the status quo are feeling threatened and pushing back. There is an attempt to discredit advances that reduce corporate medicine's control and status. Ideas that are emanating from the grassroots, from Primary Care, and from the patients themselves are quickly dismissed and labeled as “pseudo science," or out right "quackery." This type of discriminatory language is indicative of an insecure and threatened position. Such attacks have the intent to choke off new theories and approaches before they the chance to develop.
Some Hospitals and powerful specialties, along with insurance companies and even some of the elite academic centers have aligned into a mutually beneficial phalanx defending the status quo. They believe that true, legitimate innovations should only flow from their halls of power. Anything that develops from a source that they do not already have control and familiarity with triggers suspicion or outright opposition. Government organizations such as the FDA, and the FTC have been used by medical power brokers to limit and control the language of doctors. Even so much as speaking about complementary and alternative approaches to healthcare can bring swift and career ending retribution. Alas, they have adopted a posture much like pope Innocent Vlll, seeking to impose a form of censorship in the face of a rising tide of Internet-based, patient-driven challenge to their hegemony. Just like all forms of censorship, this effort will ultimately fail.
Modern medicine was founded, developed and continues to exist on the disease model of healthcare. Nearly all of their interventions rely upon the presence of an identifiable illness before they can take action. Despite some progress in this reactive model of healthcare, precious little research and energy has been focused on the preservation of health. It simply is not driven by the intellectual and economic interests of standard care medicine. Hospitals do not get filled by healthy people. Surgeons and doctors do not perform procedures on individuals in robust health. The financial health of the multi-billion-dollar healthcare industry is built on the backs of chronically ill, disabled people. Simply put, medicine profits from people who are burdened by chronic illness, but not quite dead.
Dr. Stephen Petteruti is a board-certified family physician specializing in functional medicine. His practice Intellectual Medicine 120 is in Warwick, Rhode Island.