2 CauseRosa's case continuedThe most important question is what causes disease. Why did the woman in the above story get kidney cancer? Is it because of an infection with bacteria or viruses? This seems unlikely. Kidney cancer is not associated with bacteria or viruses. Or is the kidney cancer a result of genetic predisposition? That seems to be the case here. Her father and cousin have the same symptoms. But that is also questionable, because many other family members did not have these symptoms. There is also the question of how this genetic strain came into the family.
Or does the kidney cancer have to do with the stress of the trial and the legal battle? There are two arguments for this. First of all, the kidney cancer is linked in time to the stress; it only appeared afterwards. The second argument is that there is a symbolic similarity between the kidney cancer and the stress. We will come back to this later.
CoincidenceOr is the kidney cancer a result of chance, just bad luck? I myself don't think much of this explanation because coincidence doesn't mean anything. It actually only means that we do not know the cause. In our culture's prevailing view of life, materialism, chance does not actually exist. According to the materialistic view, everything is fixed and can be calculated. Official medicine is based on that view. So if one uses chance as an explanation, a contradiction arises.
Material or psychologicalThere are two types of causes: those that come from outside and those that come from within. One can also say material and psychological causes.
Examples of material causes are infections with bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites. Others are poisoning with pesticides, herbicides, preservatives, dyes, drugs, etc. Accidents and radiation can cause illness, as can lack of nutrients, minerals, oxygen or vitamins. Psychological causes are worries, problems, stress, fears and traumas. Conventional medicine neglects these factors. Candace Pert says, "If something can't be measured, science won't admit it exists, which is why it refuses to deal with 'non-things' like emotions, the mind, the soul or our deepest being." She shows in her book "Molecules of emotion" that these are very important factors that play a role in almost all cases. Gabor Maté, in his book "The Myth of Normal", describes many cases that prove this and refers to numerous studies that confirm the connection between psychological factors and illness. It is an old wisdom that illnesses have a strong psychological component. It is the starting point for many alternative therapies.
In my experience, the psychological causes are much more important than the material ones. More than 80% of the patients describe an emotional burden by themselves. Only about 10% of patients cannot describe a psychological cause after being asked. It is known that the probability of dying in the first year after the death of a partner is much higher than normal. The causal connection is substantially confirmed by the success of an appropriate therapy, one that corresponds to the psychological burden.
GuiltPeople regularly react with resistance to the idea of psychological causes of illness, because they associate it with the idea that they themselves are to blame for their illness. One is quick to think in terms of guilt, that one's illness is one's own fault. But it is not necessary or right to think in terms of guilt. Every person does the best he can. It is not about guilt, but about wrong perceptions and feelings.
The example of an illness due to early childhood trauma makes this clear. The child does not carry guilt, but he or she carries an emotional burden of the trauma. Feelings of guilt are often part of the emotional burden, and letting go of feelings of guilt is then part of the healing. Gabor Maté describes the condition of addicts. Our society today sees them as criminals, as people who are addicted through their own fault. Maté shows that addictions can be traced back to early trauma. There is no guilt, but these are people traumatised as children. Treating trauma is much more effective and humane than punishment.
The issue of guilt is also linked to the issue of victim and perpetrator. In our culture, the perpetrator is seen as the one to blame. The perpetrator owes something to the victim, who is not to blame. This view is only partially correct. On another level, the victim and perpetrator can be the same person. This can be seen, for example, when parents who pass on their trauma to their children, either through violence or through an emotional sphere that a parent carries. Or parents who transfer their concentration camp syndrome onto their offspring, even to the third generation or more.
Thinking in terms of guilt is also an expression of personalities. Illness is simply an expression of an imbalance. It is an expression of living beings coming to their senses and finding out what has been done wrong. It is better to see it as a learning process, a process of becoming aware.
Psychological problems are often denied. People don't like to go to a psychotherapist because "I'm not crazy after all". It is better, though, to see healing as a kind of learning process. With material things, a learning process is usually not a problem. But people identify so strongly with their personality that they don't want to see that something is wrong, because then they themselves are no longer good. This rejection is an expression of a sick personality.
Origin unknownIt should be remembered that the origin of disease is ultimately unknown, as with everything in the world. We can trace the chain of causes as far back as we can, but we finally reach a point where we can go no further.
Addiction or criminality also often have their origins in a traumatic childhood. Then one can examine the causes of the parents' behaviour or those of the grandparents, or the great-grandparents. One can endlessly go back through the generations. It is good to do that to understand the issues and qualities of the traumas. The issues often remain the same throughout the generations.
All psychologicalThe question with this view is whether everything is psychological. It is likely that it is. Examples that seem to contradict this are intoxications, for example tobacco, alcohol, chemicals, asbestos and pesticides. But there are also psychological aspects present. Tobacco and alcohol addictions arise from traumatised psychological states.
Asbestos can produce mesothelioma, but it does so only in some people, not all. The personality is an influence and not everyone has the same sensitivity as others. This is the case for most intoxications. Traffic accidents can be seen as contradicting the psychological cause. But most accidents have a psychological background, arising from being drunk or angry or sad or absent-minded. Material events can seem to be the cause, but on looking further into it one can often, if not always, the psychological component becomes evident.
In the Chapter “
Cure” we come back to this issue.