Modern medicine suffers from many different and severe cases of curanoia, fears of cures, based on failures to understand cure. It’s not cure phobia, a phobia is an irrational fear without blame. Curanoia is easily and often rationalized and curers are often blamed. Curanoias exist in many forms, in every layer of our systems of modern medicine.

Why Curanoia? Why fear of cures?

Modern medicine has no functional definition of cure, no theory of cure, and is simply unable to cure most diseases – unable even to recognize a cure when it occurs. Doctors are often not permitted to cure, restrained to a Standard of Care which makes no attempt to cure. Few diseases or medical conditions have a Standard of Cure.

A cure is a change in status. An illness or disease was present, and now it is not present. We often think of an illness as a thing, but no. An illness is more like the wind. Illness is something we can neither see nor touch – we might only see or touch its causes and consequences.

An elementary illness consists of a single present cause and the negative consequences of that cause. A cure is an action, not a medicine, that addresses, changes the cause such that the negative consequences fade and disappear, no longer occurring, the illness is cured. Sometimes, an illness passes, like the wind, when the cause fades away. A complex case of illness or disease has multiple causes and thus requires multiple cure actions, one to address each cause.

A cure is a change of cause, producing a change in consequences. However, we often fear change for for good reasons, changes can be dangerous. So we fear cures many.

In the theory of cure, there are two elementary types of cures. We fear them both.

An attribute cure is a one-time cur. It is the result of a change to an attribute. Broken tooth is cured by an extraction, or a filling – both potentially painful and risky. An infection might be cured by a dangerous medicine, or perhaps a surgery. A cancer might be cured by a surgery – with potential for pain and risk based on its severity. Some attribute cures are simple – trivial – so trivial we don’t consider them cures. A minor bruise or cut heals without conscious attention, sometimes without us noticing any illness. An ingrown toenail that we can easily clip ourselves, is hardly considered a cure. If it becomes infected and a medical surgery is required. However, our medical systems generally avoid the word cure, even though surgeries are considered cures. Most attribute cures are not recognized by our current medical systems because they are not brought about by approved medicines or medical treatments.

A causal cure is a result of a change to a life process or habit. Smoker’s cough is cured by stopping the habit of smoking. The changed process (in this case the absence of process) must be maintained to maintain the cure. A scorbutic status illness (an absence of Vitamin C, an attribute) is cured with Vitamin C supplements that change the attribute – although our medical systems refer to this as a treatment, avoiding the word cure. However, a patient who is scorbutic because of poverty, addiction, or an unhealthy diet cannot be cured with supplements. A causal cure, ongoing cure actions are required. But we rarely consider ongoing processes or actions to be a cure. We don’t think of curing alcoholism as a cure for malnutrition, even when it cures. And besides, cured is not medically defined for alcohol nor malnutrition. Like all cures, causal cures also have potential for negative consequences. The cure for smoker’s cough might result in unwanted weight gain. Changing our life processes and our habits is difficult – and we generally avoid such cures. Many doctors know that advising an obese patient to lose weight to cure a skin condition or gout is generally futile, even if the patient believes it will work. There are no placebo cures.

Modern medicine recognizes attribute cures for infectious diseases, where the infectious agent is killed or removed by an approved medical or surgical treatment. Cases of disease cured by non-approved medicines are anecdotal and generally dismissed as unimportant. In all other types of cures, modern medicine has no definition of and no test for cured. No causal cures can be recognized medically, the cure actions are not medicines nor approved treatments.

Why do we Fear Cures, Curing, and Cured?

Patients fear cures because a cure changes the patient. The illness cause is often seen as an essential part of the patient, their life and lifestyle. Changing the cause, addressing the cause, transforming the cause, often transforms not just the illness, but also the patient. Alternative practitioners often refer to transformation as a curative.

Patient curanoias can also emerge from being encouraged to learn to live with your disease. Some patients gradually identify themselves with their disease. Some refuse to acknowledge the disease (thereby avoiding cures) or refuse to acknowledge the cause (thereby avoiding curative actions). Smokers might acknowledge that their smoker’s cough is caused by smoking, but may also believe their overall health, of body, mind, and spirits will drop if they stop.

There are other important reasons why patients fear cures. Searching for cures is shamed, patient are advised:

• “don’t use Dr. Google as your doctor,”
• “don’t trust alternative cures (even in cases where there are clearly no non-alternative cures)“
• “trust your doctor,” “ask your doctor,” (never mind if you don’t actually have a doctor, or if the disease or the cure is outside of your doctor’s area of knowledge.)

Patients also fear cures, even fear claiming to be cured, and claiming to be cured by X, because most doctors dismiss most cures and most cure claims. Doctors treat diseases, but have little experience curing.

Doctors fear cures because curing is medically forbidden. Medical training teaches doctors to avoid the word cure. Medical internship shames doctors that use the word cure. Modern medicine gives lip service to cures, but doctors who dare to cure – and to publicize their cures can be ostracized, can lose their license to practice, or in rare cases imprisoned or run out of town. There are many historical examples where this has happened, the most recent being doctors who dared attempt or succeed in curing COVID. According to WorldMeters.info, over 670 million cases of COVID are recorded as RECOVERED. There is not a single case of COVID cured, much less COVID cured by X. Our medical systems have no techniques to judge a case of COVID cured, much less a case of CURED BY.

Modern medicine has no medical concept of present cause , of cure cause. The present cause of an illness is the cause, which when successfully addressed, results in a cure. But, without a medical theory of cure, there is no need for an understanding of present cause. Modern medicine studies proximate causes, distal causes, ultimate causes, future causes, past causes, but not cure causes. Why? Modern medicine sees cause and effect as past (cause) and effect (future). However, the cure cause of an illness is present, presently causing the signs and symptoms of illness.

Absence of a scientific or medical definition of cured creates inability to prove a cure and reluctance to claim cured for most diseases.

In addition, confusion around the concepts of remission and reemergence (vs cured and recurrence) increases medical curanoias. A second instance of cause is often describe as the “return of the disease” as opposed to “a new case of the disease.” When cure is defined and attained, the second case is due to a new occurrence of the cause. In most diseases however, there is no distinction between the two concepts, because cured is not defined. For some illnesses – the cause is always present and risk of a new illness is high. As a result, when a doctor claims a cure, a new case of the illness is often judged remission, as a cure failure, as if the cure claim was simply wrong. This focus on disease facilitates causal ignorance. It’s safest to avoid the word cure – to make no curative promises, and avoid potential for any lawsuits.

“Ask your doctor about X” is a common advertising trope, but don’t presume to ask your doctor “How many people did you cure last week? Month? Year?” The answer will likely be denial of cure.

Even though surgeries are commonly described as cures, most surgeons avoid the word cure. No one discusses cataract surgery as a cure for cataracts – although it clearly is so. Cleft lip and hernia cures, are often easily accomplished with surgery, but rarely described as cures. More than half of cancer cases are cured by trivial actions – and thus considered trivial, not even considered to be cancers, much less cures. Part of the problem with surgeries, perhaps, is that almost all surgeries require healing to complete the cure process, so the surgery was not the complete cure. In the theory of cure, only elementary illnesses can be cured by a single action, and most cases of disease are not elementary illnesses. Most diseases require multiple cure actions.

Healing is generally recognized as a cure, but medical and nonmedical actions that facilitate and promote healing are rarely, if ever, considered cures. Rehabilitation is considered to be a treatment or a sequence of treatments, even as it cures with the aid of healing.

No nutritional disease can be cured, simply because they cannot be cured by any approved medicine. Absence of medicine is not a nutritional disease. Cured is not medically defined for nutritional diseases, even when the cure is obvious. Addressing nutritional deficiencies is a treatment for scurvy. The word cure is avoided.

Most alternative medical practitioners also fear curing, or at least the word cure, perhaps in their efforts to appear professional. Professional doctors don’t cure, so an alternative practitioner who dares claim to cure cannot be professional.

The theory of cure defines elementary illnesses as those having a single present cure cause, and being cured by addressing that cause. Compound illnesses have multiple cure causes and require multiple cures. Each of those cures addresses a single element of the illness. A complex illness is present when one illness is causing another, and two cures are required. If the primary illness is not cured, curing the secondary illness might simply result in it being recreated by the primary illness. However, these illness concepts and their associated cures simply do not exist in modern medicine – so none of their cures can be recognized, much less proven. Even with the simplest compound or complex illnesses, doctors avoid the cure word. As a result, a case of depression with multiple causes cannot be seen as partially cured when any single cause is addressed, nor seen as completely cured when all present causes are addressed. Elementary cures of compound or complex illness cures are often perceived as failures because the cure is partial. Modern medicine has no concept of an illness element, nor of a partial cure.

There is another important reason why doctors fear cures – its because medical associations and organizations fear and dismiss most cures.

Medical Associations and Systems fear cures, curing, and cured. Most cancer doctors, surveys have shown, avoid the word cure entirely and advise their staff to do the same. The same is true of many other medical practitioners. If we presume to ask any hospital or medical clinic staff if your illness will be cured – the response might be a blank stare, or perhaps an apology. Their job is to care, not to cure.

Even though over 9o percent of cases of common cold, influenza, measles, and COVID are cured, medical associations proclaim, almost with pride “there is no cure for…“

Medical associations represent the community of doctors. Someone who cures diseases is a threat to the community, because most doctors dare not cure most diseases – and cannot cure most diseases using approved treatments. Even when a case of disease is cured, the cure is rarely recognized. No doctor, medical clinic or hospital keeps statistics on cures and cure failures. Medical associations have no definition of cured for most diseases. As a result, all cure claims, especially non-medical cures or so-called alternative medical cures can be easily dismissed. Proof of cure is simply not possible without a functional definition of cured.

Medical associations often create and maintain a Standard of Care (not cure) for a disease or medical condition, under the assumption that a cure is not possible. The standard of care can become a roadblock against cures, because a cure requires actions different from the standard. Doctors who dare to cure can be accused of ignoring their responsibility to their medical associations. This is nothing new. The history of the Hippocratic Oath reveals similar regulations, “the creation of the (Hippocratic) Oath may have marked the early stages of medical training… by requiring strict loyalty” (National Library of Medicine).

There is another important reason why medical associations fear cures – it’s because governmental organizations ignore cures and dismiss most cures claims.

The USA/FDA forbids cures. Neither the CDC nor the FDA has a useful definition of cure. In FDA language, the word cure refers to products not actions. Products that claim to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent diseases are forbidden unless specifically approved. Such products must be withdrawn, or they ill be confiscated – as if they present a danger to the public. In government, cures simply do not exist unless they are approved products. However, the approval process functions without a definition of cured. Technically, all curative treatments are illegal unless they have been approved by the FDA. However, the FDA has no definition of cured to guide approvals. Submissions by product manufacturers that claim to cure provide clinical studies – each with their own specific definition of cured.

There is a reason for this simplicity. The FDA control of medicines, of medicine approval was a response to medical hucksters, sellers of fake medicines, snake oil medicines, having no ability and no intention to cure. The FDA set up a system of approval that required scientific analysis. However, this was done without any definition of cure. The deficiency – of a definition of cure – still exists today. In addition, no-one in industry, education, or government is working to address it. What is missing – the absence of a definition of cure – is simply not noticed.

There is another important reason why the FDA fears cures – the FDA is largely funded and staffed by drug companies and their representatives – who fear cures. In some ways, it make sense. Who would know the most about drugs – but the drug company representatives. However, it also creates a powerful lever for big money drug companies to control which treatments are approved and which are not approved. Simple cures will not be approved – because are no patents available, so there is no profitable market for simple cures.

Drug Manufacturers fear the word cure, and avoid theoretical or scientific discussions of cure. The simple truth is that most drugs make no attempt to cure any case of disease and cannot cure any case of disease. Another pharma truth is, drugs that do not cure are more profitable than drugs or other actions that cure. People who are cured don’t need drugs. Most cures are trivial. Most cures do not require any drugs. Cures, real cures, are a threat to the drug industry. The word cure does not appear on the product label or information insert of most prescription drugs and most OTC (over the counter) drugs. Curanoia can be profitable.

There are four basic types of drugs, only one of them can cure:

symptomicines – medicines that address the signs and symptoms of diseases like the common cold, but make no attempt to cure.

forever medicines – like insulin for diabetics drugs for depression, and statins for high cholesterol, intended to be taken regularly until the patient dies because they cannot cure.

preventatives – like vaccines, which can be marketed to anyone and everyone who fears diseases that cannot be cured. Note: preventatives that can cure, like foods containing Vitamin C, are not recognized as cures and cannot be marketed as drugs.

anti-infectious – antibiotics, antifungals, and anti-parasites, that cure by killing an invading parasite.

The problem with drugs that cure is easily understood. They are bought once, and if they work, there is no more need. The product works itself out of future sales. The market for medical cures is limited by the fact that they cure. The market for symptomicines, forever medicines, and preventatives, on the other hand, is huge.

Because drug companies fear cures – clinical researchers also ignore and dismiss most cures. Most clinical studies are funded by drug companies.

Clinical Researchers generally avoid the word cure. Most clinical studies do not contain any definition of cured for the disease being treated. These studies are looking for products that provide improvements in the condition of the patient, as opposed to cures. Products that improve the condition of a patient have potential to become forever medicines.

As a result of the absence of a definition of cure in the study plan, if a cure occurs, it cannot be officially documented. Cures are simply out of scope in most clinical studies.

Cure Rate, often measured in clinical studies – is a concept based on curanoias, based on the belief that “cured” should not be claimed, cannot be proven, and should not be documented, in individual cases of disease. Cure rate statistics count cases presumed (but not proven) to be cured. In cases, when cure rates are calculated, cured cannot be proven because no independent test of cured exists.

Clinical studies of preventatives must discount cures. If an illness is easily cured, there is little need for a preventative. The cost and risks associated with the preventative might outweigh the costs and risks of the disease and its cure. Better to simply avoid the question: ignore cures, dismiss cures, fear cures.

Clinical studies of forever medicines, like statins or diabetes medicines, must ignore cures. What if high cholesterol or diabetes can be cured? Every cure shrinks the market for forever medicines. Cures must be ignored, feared, dismissed.

Clinical studies of cures for infectious diseases can accept some cures – those caused by the medicine. However, cures of these diseases that are caused by “not the medicine” must be ignored. There is a perfect historical example of treatments for warts, where the first studies found cures on both the placebo and treatment arms of the study. An embarrassing result. What to do? The study was simply replicated without the test for cured. No cures were found, and the results were secure.

The Media, and Publishers fear cures, curing, and cured. This is easily seen when cure claims are made public. Large media organizations have huge income from pharma advertisers. Discussing cures, opposed by pharma companies, is a serious risk. Drug companies, the FDA, medical associations, doctors and patients all agree. There are no cures for most diseases. There are no cures for chronic diseases. There are no cures for mental disorders. There are no cures for most diseases caused by viruses. So news stories about cures, curing, or cured must be ignored, or dismissed, or opposed. Or, they can be relegated to anecdotal cure status, which translates to must be ignored.

At the same time, the media promotes faith in pharma by publishing frequent reports of potential cures for, of moving closer to a cure of, and other new research suggesting that cures are just over the horizon (which in actuality is constantly receeding.)

Doctors who write medical books are often required to publish cure disclaimers that range from mild advice of “consult with your physician” to wholesale statements like “the material in this book is not intended to prevent, treat, or cure any disease.” I suspect that, in part, this is because publishers do not want to be sued for damages caused by a cure that didn’t work. I currently have a book about cures in Amazon’s publishing platform that is BLOCKED from publication. The book does not recommend a cure, rather it is analysis of curing covid from the perspective of the theory of cure. Publishing information about cures can be forbidden without serious analysis, without any definition of cure..

Summary and Conclusion:

In summary, all of the players in our medical systems, from patients to the most prestigious medical organizations, to and the highest level of government, no-one has a theory of cure. There is no general understanding of cure for the simplest illnesses, much less a definition that covers all types of diseases. This ignorance of cure leads to ignoring cures and over time, to fear of studying cures, curing, and cured logically and scientifically: curanoia.

An illness might be simple. A simple illness has a single cause and is cured when that cause is successfully addressed. However, our current medical establishment has no concept of a simple illness, much less any concept of a simple, compound, or complex cure. Because complex and compound cures are not understood, there is also no concept of a partial cure. All cures, in current non-theory, must be perfect and complete to be valid. So few cures are valid.

What little discussion of cure exists – mostly in fundraiser organizations, not medical organizations, is about single cures for complex diseases, sometime in the distant future. We simply do not understand. It is not possible, by definition, to cure a complex illness with a simple, one-time cure, a complex cure is required, one that addresses multiple connected causes, often in a specific sequence depending on the case.

As long as our medical doctors and organizations fear cures, we will find few, if any cures. It is worth noting that the most prestigious award in medicine, the Nobel Prize, has only once – in its 130 plus year history, given the Noble Prize for a cure. And that was over 70 years ago. Even the Nobel Prize committee appears to have a fear of using the word cure. Since the 1940s, no cure has been recognized by the Nobel Prize Committee.

To your health, tracy
Author: A New Theory of Cure

Apparently, Microsoft’s Bing AI knows who I am. Google’s ChatGTP? Not at all.

BING: “Theory of Cure” Response Analysis

Bing’s response to “theory of cure” leads with a reference to a Harvard University article titled Care, Cure, and Context which contains the word “cure” only once outside of the title and “theory” only once – in reference to the “germ theory of disease.” It contains no reference to any “theory of cure.”

Next, Bing references my paper on Theory of Cure with, “Another theory of cure is presented in a paper by Tracy D Kolenchuk. The paper presents the foundation of a theory of cure.” However, Bing managed to mess up the link – which instead links to the third point.

Bings third reference is perhaps one of the most quoted theories of cure, “Lydia Hall’s Care, Cure, Core Theory of Nursing,” which is actually a theory of nursing, not a theory of cure. However, in the absence of any medical theory of cure – much less any authoritative medical theory of cure, Hall’s writing is often referred to as a theory of cure.

Bing then offers four links to further information, the first is a link my paper, “A Theory of Cure” published on Academia.edu in November 2019 and updated on March 2020. Bing makes no reference to the book A New Theory of Cure,” published in July 2021, nor to the updated paper published in 2023. The second link is to the Harvard article, published in 2021, which contains no reference to any theory of cure. The third and fourth links are to writings about Lydia C Hall and her Theory of Nursing – but without any link to her actual writings.

ChatGTP: “Theory of Cure” Response Analysis

The response from ChatGTP reminds me of American philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt in his short book On Bullshit. Frankfurt advises that “bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn’t care if what they say is true or false.” Frankfurt also gives a warning – one important in this case, advising that:

Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require
someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus
the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person’s
obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic are more
excessive than his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that
topic.

ChatGTP’s response is full of waffling phrases like “the ‘theory of cure’ is a broad concept that can have different meanings depending on the context”, “the theory of cure often involves,” “the theory of cure might revolve around,” “the theory of cure may involve concepts related to psychotherapy, behavioral change, and emotional healing,” “They (alternative medical practices) may emphasize the interconnectedness of the body, mind, and spirit, and posit that healing involves restoring balance and harmony in all these aspects of a person’s life,” “the theory of cure can involve strategies and interventions aimed at preventing diseases,” and “the theory of cure may involve acknowledging the importance of the patient’s own beliefs, values, and experiences in the healing process.”

It all sounds so logical, but when we look closer, it actually says “may involve….blah, blah, blah,” “may emphasize….blah, blah, blah,” “can involve….blah, blah, blah,” and again “may involve….blah, blah, blah.”

The ChatGTP response actually avoids saying anything definitive, while giving the impression that it has a lot to say.

A second look is even more revealing. In each case, where ChatGTP used the phrase “theory of cure” we can substitute “cure” or “curing” with no loss of information – and a gain in clarity.

ChatGTP’s quote, “Theory of cure is a broad concept that can have different meanings depending on the context” becomes simply “Curing is a broad concept that can have different meanings depending on the context.”

ChatGTP’s quote, “theory of cure may involve concepts related to psychotherapy, behavioral change, and emotional healing.” becomes “curing may involve concepts related to psychotherapy, behavioral change, and emotional healing.“

ChatGTP’s “Some healing traditions and alternative medicine practices take a holistic approach to the theory of cure,” becomes “Some healing traditions and alternative medicine practices take a holistic approach to curing.”

In short, ChatGTP, like the proverbial BSing politician, simply said whatever it wanted, substituting the word I wanted to hear.

After ChatGTP spews several paragraphs of credible nonsense without references, it finishes with this vague, non-committal, bafflegab: “It’s important to note that the theory of cure can vary greatly depending on the specific disease or condition being addressed and the discipline or field of medicine or therapy involved. Additionally, medical science is continually evolving, and new theories of cure may emerge as our understanding of health and disease advances.“

Which we now understand actually says, “It’s important to note that the cure can vary greatly depending on the specific disease or condition being addressed and the discipline or field of medicine or therapy involved. Additionally, medical science is continually evolving, and new cures may emerge as our understanding of health and disease advances.“

Conclusion:

On a topic like “theory of cure,” where the answer cannot be found in Wikipedia, AI systems don’t do very well. The problem is simply that modern medicine, for all it’s pretentions of scientific progress, has no recognized theory of cure.

Bing managed to collect two useful references – and one erroneous. It failed to acknowledge many historical and other so-called alternative theories of medicine that propose theories of illness, disease, and cures. One of the links to references was simply WRONG. Another was a link to a reference of a reference, not the original source (Lydia Hall).

ChatGTP, on the other hand, having nothing to say, simply resorted to saying a lot of nothing. Sounding intelligent and authoritative, without actually making any commitment to fact. ChatGTP presents a perfect response for a bureaucrat who needs to sound intelligent without saying anything substantial. In short, bullshit.

Neither mentioned the theories of Hippocrates, who said simply, “The patient himself must bring about a cure by combating the cause of the disease,” and “Diseases which arise from repletion are cured by depletion; and those that arise from depletion are cured by repletion; and in general, diseases are cured by their contraries.” He also said “To sum up in a single sentence, opposites are cures for opposites.” Nor did either mention the theory of “like cures like” made famous by Hahnemann is his homeopathic writings of the Law of Similars, or Freud’s talking cure, which his been described as a theory, as a therapy, and as the historical foundation of psychoanalysis.

Strangely, if we ask Google about theory of cure, it references Lydia Hall’s theory of nursing first, followed by the book A New Theory of Cure, then again Lydia Hall references with other links to random pages like the published paper “Unconscious Fantasy and Theories of Cure.” None of these are discussed by ChatGTP.

Microsoft’s Bing, in similar fashion, when asked about theory of cure, references Lydia Hall’s nursing theory first, and has several references to my work in the book A New Theory of Cure and various published papers on ResearchGate, but makes no reference to Hippocrates nor Hahnemann on it’s first page. Freud’s talking cure makes a few appearances in later pages. Hahnemann’s like cures like is relegated to page 7 of the search. Hippocrates does not appear in the first 10 pages.

In short, both Google search and Bing search know more about theory of cure and offer more on the first page of their search results, than either of their heavily promoted AI systems.

==================================================

BING: response to “Theory of Cure”

In modern medicine, the concept of cure has evolved to encompass a wide range of practices and philosophies. For example, the Care, Cure, and Context theory developed by Harvard Medical School emphasizes the importance of social factors such as poverty and inequality in determining who gets sick, who gets better, and who dies ².

Another theory of cure is presented in a paper by Tracy D Kolenchuk. The paper presents the foundation of a theory of cure, beginning with elementary illnesses and laying a framework to understand and cure compound illnesses, and to recognize cures when they occur or are achieved ³.

Lydia Hall’s Care, Cure, Core Theory of Nursing is another example of a theory that emphasizes the importance of caring for patients as individuals rather than just treating their symptoms ⁴.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.

==============================================

ChatGTP: response to “Theory of Cure”

The “theory of cure” is a broad concept that can have different meanings depending on the context in which it is used. In general, it refers to the underlying principles or theories that explain how a particular treatment or intervention leads to the resolution or improvement of a medical condition or disease. Here are a few different perspectives on the theory of cure:

1. Biological/Physiological Perspective: From a biological or physiological standpoint, the theory of cure often involves understanding the mechanisms by which a treatment or therapy affects the body. This might include concepts such as targeting the root cause of a disease, restoring normal physiological function, or eliminating pathogens (in the case of infectious diseases).
2. Pharmacological Perspective: In the context of drug treatments, the theory of cure might revolve around how a specific medication interacts with molecular targets in the body, such as receptors or enzymes, to bring about therapeutic effects. Understanding the pharmacokinetics (how the body absorbs, distributes, metabolizes, and excretes the drug) and pharmacodynamics (how the drug affects the body) is crucial in this context.
3. Psychological Perspective: For certain conditions, especially those with a significant psychological component (e.g., mental health disorders), the theory of cure may involve concepts related to psychotherapy, behavioral change, and emotional healing. It may focus on how therapy helps individuals change their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors to achieve better mental health.
4. Holistic Perspective: Some healing traditions and alternative medicine practices take a holistic approach to the theory of cure. They may emphasize the interconnectedness of the body, mind, and spirit, and posit that healing involves restoring balance and harmony in all these aspects of a person’s life.
5. Preventive Perspective: In preventive medicine, the theory of cure can involve strategies and interventions aimed at preventing diseases before they occur. This may include vaccination, lifestyle modifications, and public health measures that reduce risk factors for diseases.
6. Patient-Centered Perspective: In patient-centered care, the theory of cure may involve acknowledging the importance of the patient’s own beliefs, values, and experiences in the healing process. This approach recognizes that a patient’s active involvement and engagement in their own care can be essential for achieving a cure or better health outcomes.

It’s important to note that the theory of cure can vary greatly depending on the specific disease or condition being addressed and the discipline or field of medicine or therapy involved. Additionally, medical science is continually evolving, and new theories of cure may emerge as our understanding of health and disease advances.