Sickness is attributed to a particular cause, but one that can only be generally specified at varying degrees of localization.
Sickness is often attributed to some distinct and identifiable cause.
Such is the case with cold viruses or bacterial infections. Symptoms and signs are common enough to be attributed to these. But there are other external causes such as fungal molds, other microbes, or parasites, and even toxins such as heavy metals, chemical agents, medicines, and even radiation. These are less evident, and take some forensic exploration to pinpoint. Then there are those traumatic events, be they physical or emotional. Finally, there is diet and level of activity. Aside from some likely congenital disorders, all these sources are potential causes of illness.
So how do we attribute the cause to disease?
For one, they have to enter the body. Yet this is not truly helpful, because bacteria and even viruses have been with us since birth with no apparent side effects. Many are part of our normal physiology.
Toxins are of a different sort. They can be tolerated in an amount deemed safe. But measures of toxin tolerance historically have not proven to be helpful. Cigarette smoke for instance were never considered a health hazard, nor were DDT and lead. It makes you wonder how we will view the EMF emissions of cell phones in years to come.
Sickness is certainly a measure of the significance of exposure in intensity or long-term. Our personal and communal histories determine our vulnerability in either case, local or global concentrations, and within or without.
As lethal as Ebola and plutonium are for instance, one has to proliferate and the other accumulate passed a mere trace amount to be a threat. No matter the source, concentration is central in the account of a cause of disease.
To say that we are sick because of some particular agent alone is naive.
It discounts predisposed concentrations in the recipient and without.
Sickness is an ecological matter. It is about concentrations of organisms, substances and systems that prove to be incompatible. On the other hand with the localization of concentrations threats can be isolated and minimized if not altogether avoided or evaded.
The human body itself has systems in place to avert deep and comprehensive intrusions by outside agents. One of them is the immune system. Your temperature for instance rises and your nose congests, all to make your body inhospitable to a viral intruder. Your symptoms are a sign of a concentrated effort. Unfortunately in the case of say Ebola, the immune system in full force is lethal. It causes "…the arteries, veins and capillaries…to leak blood and plasma.” (//www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2014/08/26/342451672/how-ebola-kills-you-its-not-the-virus). Ebola does not kill. The immune system does. It is an instance of a concentrated effort for good gone awry.
So why are you sick? It is definitely attributed to a particular cause, but one that can only be generally specified at varying degrees of localization.
A telling feature in this regard is human physiology. It clearly specifies general but localized features in the form of organs and organ systems. These are concentrations of tissue that act against and protect from specified concentrations of harmful agents. If sickness is defined as an incompatibility of various concentrations, organs and organ systems are key to a solution to sickness. To be able to detect when they are under threat and by what agent, and knowing how to supply them with the support they need and a means of removal of a particular agent is likely the best solution overall.
Come to an organ’s aid and remove the agent, do this comprehensively and you have an effective solution to disease. This is what Field Control Therapy accomplishes. The practice detects organ stress, alleviates it and works to remove the agent at the root of the stress. Anyone seriously considering overcoming an illness should consider FCT for one reason alone, because of its contiguity with the process and progression of sickness.