Field Control Therapy Support Forums

Below is an interesting discussion with Dr Yurkovsky which I’d like to share on the public forum here, because it has something in it for everyone.

In particular, if you’ve wondered how FCT claims to be different, read on.

This represents part of the essence of how and why FCT stands apart from almost all other forms of medicine, since outside of the field of FCT you would need to travel long and far to find a teaching discipline that covered and responded to the points raised below.

And yet they are such fundamental points that there is no question in my mind that the rest of medicine will one day catch up with Dr Yurkovsky on this point; unless, that is, the progress of human knowledge freezes or regresses due to a new Ice Age either in the physical environment or the academic one!

Dr Yurkovsky was recently attending to a patient who is a computer technician (hence the references to computers below). The man asked about the use of clay for regulating pH, and I recorded Dr Yurkovsky’s revealing and (to me) highly entertaining response! This is copied in the next post on this thread below. Please note that this passage has not been polished by Dr Yurkovsky, but merely recorded as he said it spontaneously. My own reflections then follow.

Incidentally, this whole passage was delivered with plenty of humour, which the patient also shared with a big grin.

Q from patient: Is clay good? They say it helps regulate your pH. . .

A from Dr Yurkovsky: That’s identical in idiocy as it would be to say that you could give a product that would give the right genetic balance. . . or that regulates computers. . .

We ultimately cannot do such a thing. pH is a strictly individual thing. There are very laborious mechanisms to regulate pH. People do not realize how complex the body is. You cannot take a product that regulates pH.

Can you zoom something through a computer to regulate it? To make it work better? A computer has so many sub-functions and sub-processes – so how can you zoom something through a computer to regulate it? Not to fix a specific thing, but for a general tuning – so that the computer is more regular, more precise, and works better?

No, it’s not possible. It can be only posed by an ignorant person. What does ‘better’ mean? There are hundreds if not thousands of functions in the computer.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a clay or brew or glue! But they say it’s natural, it’s alternative medicine, and then they prey on people’s ignorance.

Taking something to regulate your pH is no less idiotic than to propose the following:

Can we beam something into the sky that regulates the universe?

In an amusing way, I feel this says a lot about the basic foundation of FCT: rather than trying to “take” something to “alter” something in the body according to our fanciful theories, a more intelligent way to proceed is to assist the body in its self-regulation.

It is like trying to learn to fly like a bird: alas we cannot lift our arms and fly up like our feathered friends!

Likewise, there’s no way we can even begin to understand the complexities of the human body sufficiently to know that the products or foods we are recommending to “alter” or “regulate” this or that will have the ultimate effect we desire.

Dr Yurkovsky knows this because – as he recounts in detail in his teaching seminars – he has undertaken an in-depth study of complex systems, an important relatively new field which has only emerged in recent decades, and – unfortunately – has yet to be applied meaningfully to medicine, except by Dr Yurkovsky.

I’ve seen Dr Yurkovsky’s copy of an enormous textbook on complex systems, heavily read and full of careful underlining and annotation. His conclusion in this regard is quite simple: most medical approaches – including alternative ones – are misguided, because they have still not recognized that the basic laws of complex systems apply also to the human body, since the human body is a complex system.

So instead of basing our approach on adding things to the body in an attempt to alter an unfathomably complex system in ways that we cannot possibly predict or control, a more enlightened medical approach is to recognize and respect the body’s own highly complex and efficient methods of self-regulation.

Hence our objective is then no longer a search for what needs to be altered in the body: instead we seek only to find out what is hindering the body’s process of self-regulation and homeostasis, and then we seek to remove this and thereby assist the body’s process of self-regulation.

To elaborate further, the above may seem like a subtle distinction, but it is not at all. If for medical reasons you take a pill, or a vitamin, or a herb, or a food, or perhaps undergo some physical therapy or some surgery, then what are you doing? Do you perhaps feel that any of these represent a system of medicine? I would dispute that.

All of these are helpful and meaningful in their place, for certain uses and contexts, but the basic overriding fact remains that none of these should or can constitute a system of medicine, because all of them represent methods of giving something to the body (a complex system) in an attempt to alter that system according to a theory we have which claims to predict a net benefit in the system.

But that alleged prediction is fundamentally flawed. It doesn’t matter how many placebo-controlled studies, case reports, observations, anecdotes or ideas are offered in support: the basic approach is wrong, because the laws governing complex systems have been clearly and unquestionably shown to be immensely complex.

To draw a parallel, we have all heard of the ‘butterfly effect’: and yet people still imagine they can put something in a person’s mouth and know the net result inside the body. They cannot.

Complex, in this context, means basically that no matter how much we study the human body, we will never be able to know enough to be able to use medical interventions of this sort to attain a predictable and meaningful net benefit to the system, any more than we can lift our arms and fly into the air: we cannot replicate a bird’s wings with our arms, and likewise we cannot replicate the body’s system of self-regulation with an attempt to take over the show and claim that we know what the body needs to be given.

Yet there are countless examples of medical approaches which are trying to do just that: practitioners trying to lower cholesterol, or raise magnetic polarities, or lower acidity, or lower antibodies, or raise immunity, or lower blood pressure, or raise hormones. . . or, more likely, raise hell – everyone wants to increase or reduce something in a system they don’t even begin to understand.

It’s like playing with toy soldiers and then imagining you know how war works.

In conclusion, we continually try to “run” the body on its behalf, yet in truth we don’t know half of what it all means: there are thousands of unpredictable and unknowable variables at play, and in fact this is why the ‘butterfly effect’ was named in the first place. We don’t know what all these variables really mean collectively, or how they relate to one another, or what really influences their fluctuations, or why.

We naively measure the tide of the ocean then try to play Moses by moving the seas in whichever direction we see fit, and then we call this medicine. . . and yet even one flutter of a butterfly’s wings on the other side of the globe could turn everything on its head again.

So, being unable to fly, we build aeroplanes instead. And building an aeroplane is an amazing feat, but still we cannot fly with our arms, and still the aeroplane is a pale imitation of the bird’s natural flight: hence we can make fascinating models to mirror and explain how the body works, but still we cannot directly make the body work – only the body can make itself work, and all we can do is to lend assistance when the body is hindered in this process.

Using this apparently subtle difference of approach, a whole new system of medicine can be developed which is more meaningful and based on a far humbler precept: instead of declaring that we know what needs to be altered or regulated in the body, we read about complex systems, eat humble pie and instead leave the part about ‘altering’ and ‘regulating’ mostly to the body itself, and focus our attention primarily on what may be hindering the body’s own efforts.

If I had not met Dr Yurkovsky, I would now be living in the hope that someday someone would develop a better system of medicine based on these types of conclusions. It is in my mind not a question of a particular therapy as opposed to some other therapy: it is a question of medical truth, and the frontiers of science. Thankfully, Dr Yurkovsky has already made great inroads in this direction: so it is already an evolving science, spurred on by this firmly established and eloquently expressed grain of truth at its heart.

To learn more about FCT, please explore other posts and forums at this site. This post was linked from the following thread which expands further on the same theme via a 'busdriver' analogy:
http://www.fctforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=260