Field Control Therapy Support Forums

If you have a potential interest in studying FCT and would like to know more about the basis of FCT, here's a link to a new thread which hopefully explains one of the various important principles on which FCT has been based: why it is that we work "with" the body, in its process of self-regulation, rather than merely imposing substances and manufactured solutions that we believe are what is required. . .

http://www.fctforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=259

Another analogy, to illustrate the point, is the one of the bus that has to get across town. Imagine that the other side of town is good health, so we want to help.

The best way to help would be to board the bus and drive it across town. . . right?

But wait, the bus already has a driver. This is the essential point. . .

As they say, too many cooks spoil the broth. . . . and too many busdrivers will mean conflict. We'll have one busdriver (the body) trying to steer one way, while the other (our interventions) are forcing the bus to steer elsewhere. End result: chaos. Rather than getting across town any faster, more likely the bus will be delayed further, and might even crash if the drivers really fall out!

Think about it: each time someone ill is given a pill, a supplement, an operation, or some other medical intervention, is the body's busdriver taken into account? Or is the solution being imposed, as though the bus has no driver? The answer to this question raises very serious concerns about the very basis of over 95% of existing medical practices, including alternative ones.

If the body was not self-regulating, it could not function. This process of homeostasis is what establishes good health and healing: we could never maintain the human body in good health from outside - but thankfully the body does that itself. And yet when we offer "medical" input, we conveniently forget this, and pretend that the body is an inanimate object that we are treating.

We consider variables - such as cholesterol, blood pressure or acidity - and try to change them, as though we are dealing with test tubes in a laboratory. But this bus has a driver, and all of these variables are only a few out of millions of superficial signs of a living, dynamic process of self-regulation. It is not the variables that we should be looking at, but the process of self-regulation.

So instead let's try to see where the existing busdriver is heading, and offer any assistance that is needed. For example, a map of town would be an excellent piece of medical help. It would help the driver get across town.

Offering this map is very different from trying to nudge the current driver aside and take over the controls of the body.

In fact, as explained in more detail in the above link, we could not control the bus even if we tried, because the body is an unfathomably complex system. All we can do is jerk the steering wheel to one side or the other occasionally, which is extremely disrupting to the driver, to say the least. How would you like someone doing that when you're trying to drive? It's not exactly a co-operative effort. And it completely lacks respect: essentially, medical science is taught in a way that has lost its respect for the human body's miraculous processes of self-regulation and healing.

Speaking of respect, would you get on a bus and do that? I think most of us would be more respectful to the driver, and offer help in the form of maps and directions if at all, not by jerking the steering wheel in front of him or her, except in emergencies.

By the same reasoning, proposed treatments like pills, supplements or operations should only be warranted as medical solutions in emergencies, and only as temporary fixes, not real solutions. It's nothing more than jerking the driver's wheel momentarily to avoid a crash. Beyond that, it's not helping us get across town any faster.

So the new medical science of the future needs to have a different focus: it needs to be a science of maps, to assist the body's chief-in-command rather than pushing it aside. Thankfully, this is the basis of FCT treatments: rather than imposing substances, we give the body information, in the form of FCT remedies, and this is what facilitates healing and constitutes real medicine.

As a footnote, the above analogy is also a definition of the difference between so-called "allopathic medicine" and "homeopathic medicine."

"Allopathic" solutions are efforts to take over the controls of the bus by jerking the steering wheel. Hence, as explained above, these could be either conventional or alternative forms of medicine, it doesn't matter. If a herb or vitamin or food is given with the same intention as a pharmaceutical medication - to increase or reduce some variable in the body - then it amounts to the same thing: allopathy.

Incidentally, I'm not implying that pills or herbs or vitamins or foods are not useful or necessary. I'm just re-defining them in a different context: they may serve useful purposes (e.g. for fulfilling certain bodily needs), but in the context of illness they do not constitute serious medical solutions beyond quick jerking of the driver's steering wheel in this rude allopathic manner.

In contrast, "homeopathic" solutions recognize the sovereignty of the driver on the bus! (Eureka!) Hence the effort, instead, is to assist the driver, not jerk the steering wheel. There are various branches of homeopathy, as described in Dr Yurkovsky's book, but they all work on this same principle: they just aim to assist the driver in different ways. FCT is the cornerstone in terms of an effective homeopathic solution for modern illnesses, rooted as they mostly are in toxicity states, as Dr Yurkovsky has described - but in addition other forms of homeopathy (i.e. classical homeopathy) are also important in FCT depending on the context. Even allopathic solutions are occasionally used in FCT, for certain purposes, but only briefly and usually for 'emergencies': why else would you jerk the driver's wheel in front of his nose?