What do you think?
Rate this book
The Healing Paradox: A Revolutionary Approach to Treating and Curing Physical and Mental Illness
Why does Western medicine fail to cure chronic physical and mental illness? Why do so many treatments and drugs work only for a limited time before eventually losing effectiveness or producing harmful side effects?
Dr. Steven Goldsmith's answer is at once counterintuitive and the root of the problem is our combative approach. Instead of resisting and fighting our ailments, we should cooperate with and even embrace them. We should look for and apply treatments that are integrated with the causes of illness, not regard illness as an enemy to conquer.
This "hair of the dog" principle is already widely evident in practice. Take, for example, vaccines and inoculations, which are small doses of the microbes that cause the diseases being prevented; the use of the stimulant Ritalin to calm and ground people with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; and radiation, which is both a well-known cause of cancer and a well-known method of treating it. These are just a few of Goldsmith's many examples, which he relays in clear, evocative, and thought-provoking language. Perhaps most compelling of all, he explores reasons why this clearly effective principle is ignored by Western medicine.
Drawing on fascinating case studies and personal experiences from his forty-year career as a medical doctor and psychiatrist—as well as abundant clinical, experimental, and public health data that support his seemingly paradoxical assertion—Dr. Goldsmith presents an exciting, revolutionary approach that will change the way you think about medicine and psychotherapy.¶
Dr. Steven Goldsmith's answer is at once counterintuitive and the root of the problem is our combative approach. Instead of resisting and fighting our ailments, we should cooperate with and even embrace them. We should look for and apply treatments that are integrated with the causes of illness, not regard illness as an enemy to conquer.
This "hair of the dog" principle is already widely evident in practice. Take, for example, vaccines and inoculations, which are small doses of the microbes that cause the diseases being prevented; the use of the stimulant Ritalin to calm and ground people with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; and radiation, which is both a well-known cause of cancer and a well-known method of treating it. These are just a few of Goldsmith's many examples, which he relays in clear, evocative, and thought-provoking language. Perhaps most compelling of all, he explores reasons why this clearly effective principle is ignored by Western medicine.
Drawing on fascinating case studies and personal experiences from his forty-year career as a medical doctor and psychiatrist—as well as abundant clinical, experimental, and public health data that support his seemingly paradoxical assertion—Dr. Goldsmith presents an exciting, revolutionary approach that will change the way you think about medicine and psychotherapy.¶
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2013
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
April 2, 2014
"In leaving us changed and whole, effective therapeutic paradox helps us reclaim what we didn't know we had lost, what we didn't know was us. And through trickery of its truths, we discover who we really are. And become well."
"And so Medicine, in targeting the Bad with its weaponry, unleashes friendly fire. It never realizes that to attack disease is to attack people, to weaken them. Could this be why, with ever more sophisticated treatments, more of us fall chronically ill?"
"For Medicine to heal a patient, it must be prepared to invade a system that is in a constant state of flux - not a static and passive recipient of drugs or scalpels, but a shifting, dynamic network of interacting communications that responds actively to medical intervention as it does to all perturbations, enabling the organism to remain stable and survive. For it is a paradox of life that an organism must change - constantly, in fact - in order to remain the same. Yet Medicine does not see that its treatments are rendered ineffectual through this very fact."
"And so Medicine, in targeting the Bad with its weaponry, unleashes friendly fire. It never realizes that to attack disease is to attack people, to weaken them. Could this be why, with ever more sophisticated treatments, more of us fall chronically ill?"
"For Medicine to heal a patient, it must be prepared to invade a system that is in a constant state of flux - not a static and passive recipient of drugs or scalpels, but a shifting, dynamic network of interacting communications that responds actively to medical intervention as it does to all perturbations, enabling the organism to remain stable and survive. For it is a paradox of life that an organism must change - constantly, in fact - in order to remain the same. Yet Medicine does not see that its treatments are rendered ineffectual through this very fact."
October 30, 2013
The eponymous paradox in this elegant and closely-argued defence of homeopathy is that no matter how much effort is expended on developing medical science and how many resources are dedicated to research and development of new drugs and procedures, people seem on the whole to be no healthier than in the past. Evidence of this is provided in the epidemics of obesity, diabetes and mental disorders that now affect the people of the United States - this is a book that overwhelmingly focuses on the USA and the arguments made do not fare so well when considered from the perspective of other countries, especially those which have experienced rapid social and economic development over recent decades.
However, in the context of the USA, this is an argument that has some support and the author Steven Goldsmith blames the fundamental guiding principle that so many practitioners adopt of warfare between the human defenders of health and the marauding diseases. Doctors aim to eradicate the diseases - pathogens, evil aliens - and when they cannot they will at least do their best to restrict or control the enemies. Even so, this may not be the best way to consider diseases, which are after all the results of the interactions of organic matter and of living creatures, which are of course subject to the processes of evolution. We know that this is the case because of the presence of antibiotic resistant tuberculosis and other diseases. This suggests that a more appropriate means of thinking about the medical process is in terms of a dialectical relationship; that is, both practitioner and disease affect each other through the course of their relationship and are changed by that interaction.
New strategies for attacking the beasts will be suggested but the fundamental situation will remain the same. What is needed, therefore, is a wholly different approach, not one that uses the approach of opposition but one that uses the approach of similarity. This is the essence of homeopathy: that a small amount of a particular substance can cure symptoms that a larger amount of the substance would cause. In itself, this is not very controversial because it is known that children can be inoculated to resist disease by being given a small infection of the condition. Where the practice of homeopathy does become controversial - and this is not dealt with at great length in the text, presumably because extensive details are available elsewhere and it would detract from the main line of argument - is in the dilution of the recommended cure to such an extent that there may physically be none of that proposed cure in the liquid medium used (he suggests a combination of water and some form of alcohol). The dosage is, therefore, zero. Further, this is a method that, as Goldsmith explains, requires at least on some occasions just a single dose to bring about a complete cure for the treatment and is not just a step along the way to condition management. This is clearly problematic from a conventional way of thinking since, as homeopathy claims to be more than just a placebo effect in action, it is known that the medium itself will not bring about that change and so how, logically, is it possible for homeopathy ever to work? This crucial issue is considered in this paragraph on p.183:
"Potentization, homeopaths believe, releases a force, probably electromagnetic (among other evidence, electromagnetic fields prevent remedies from acting), that otherwise lies dormant within the original substance. This liberation of energy permits a greater number of natural substances to be transformed into remedies that can act therapeutically. There are now at least three thousand remedies available."
Goldsmith's purpose here is not to explore this issue in any detail here but to pursue his own argument concerning the problems in health care as a whole. Nevertheless, there is an issue of credibility and the suspension of the normal critical disbelief is required. This is, I think, the central point of the book as a whole (I believe I am required to mention that I have been sent a copy of this book for review, although that is not the law in the country where I live). Homeopathy has received an incredibly hostile reception from much of the rest of the medical profession, largely because its critical premises challenge so much of he hard-won knowledge and experience of those concerned.
I approached this book (and I retain this approach now that I have finished reading it) in a spirit of critical openness. I have, after all, lived for years in countries where many people turn first to oriental rather than western medicine and where even the best educated people profess belief in all kinds of supernatural occurrences - homeopathy is not to be equated with the supernatural but the two do both challenge existing scientific thinking. Comparing our knowledge of physics, chemistry and biology with what was known and taught when I was a boy reveals huge differences. The simple forms of causality we were brought to understand in the past no longer apply in a universe of quantum mechanics. Besides which, if homeopathy really does work in some cases, then surely that must be a good thing since it releases people from the misery and imprisonment of ill-health and that is a goal much to be willed. So can it be believed? In my home country, the National Health Service (one of the wonders of the modern world) provides funding for homeopathy in the teeth of the anger of many physicians, although with the support of the Prince of Wales. Goldsmith provides examples from his own practice, which specifically deals with the complex issues of mental health, as well as some papers in the peer-reviewed academic journals. He talks about the epistemological difficulties involved in persuading well-trained people to believe something counter-intuitive and he is right to do so: unfortunately, the way he assembles his argument does not really help in this process. The assemblage is reasonable enough but relies to too great an extent on the fact that exceptions or outliers suggest that an underlying premise should be rejected. Instead, an attempt to explain anomalies within the existing framework should take place. I am aware, as I write this, that attempting to explain any anomalous exceptions to a rule is not the way to create a best-seller. Nevertheless, I would have preferred a little more of this.
There is the second problem of lack of attention given to the importance of changes in environmental conditions and their impacts on expectations and aspirations when it comes to health. Until very recently, people died in their thirties (younger for women facing problems with childbirth and men expected to fight or follow dangerous occupations) and so did not have time to develop or worry about long-term degenerative ailments. The thousand aches and pains to which flesh is heir would kill or not and, if they did not, then probably a wild animal, workplace accident or act of violence would do the trick. Mental health problems would be taken as the act of unkind spirits and dealt with accordingly - it still is in many parts of the country where I live. Above all, perhaps, the deeply dysfunctional nature of the American healthcare industry, organized by and for profit-making corporations with heavy incentives to increase the number of interventions and treatments and not to cure patients, is not properly addressed. These are issues that for me should be considered more than or at least in parallel with the central question of the credibility of homeopathy as a whole.
Overall, this is either a very well-written book or a well-written book with an excellent editor, showing a great deal of sensible and erudite thinking exposed by such details as the choice of epigraphs, the use of pronouns and the structure and progression of the argument. I cannot imagine a much better defence for homeopathy and its virtues than this. It is thoughtful, eloquent and persuasive. It is also worthy of a wide audience and I hope the author, editor and publisher achieve this.
However, in the context of the USA, this is an argument that has some support and the author Steven Goldsmith blames the fundamental guiding principle that so many practitioners adopt of warfare between the human defenders of health and the marauding diseases. Doctors aim to eradicate the diseases - pathogens, evil aliens - and when they cannot they will at least do their best to restrict or control the enemies. Even so, this may not be the best way to consider diseases, which are after all the results of the interactions of organic matter and of living creatures, which are of course subject to the processes of evolution. We know that this is the case because of the presence of antibiotic resistant tuberculosis and other diseases. This suggests that a more appropriate means of thinking about the medical process is in terms of a dialectical relationship; that is, both practitioner and disease affect each other through the course of their relationship and are changed by that interaction.
New strategies for attacking the beasts will be suggested but the fundamental situation will remain the same. What is needed, therefore, is a wholly different approach, not one that uses the approach of opposition but one that uses the approach of similarity. This is the essence of homeopathy: that a small amount of a particular substance can cure symptoms that a larger amount of the substance would cause. In itself, this is not very controversial because it is known that children can be inoculated to resist disease by being given a small infection of the condition. Where the practice of homeopathy does become controversial - and this is not dealt with at great length in the text, presumably because extensive details are available elsewhere and it would detract from the main line of argument - is in the dilution of the recommended cure to such an extent that there may physically be none of that proposed cure in the liquid medium used (he suggests a combination of water and some form of alcohol). The dosage is, therefore, zero. Further, this is a method that, as Goldsmith explains, requires at least on some occasions just a single dose to bring about a complete cure for the treatment and is not just a step along the way to condition management. This is clearly problematic from a conventional way of thinking since, as homeopathy claims to be more than just a placebo effect in action, it is known that the medium itself will not bring about that change and so how, logically, is it possible for homeopathy ever to work? This crucial issue is considered in this paragraph on p.183:
"Potentization, homeopaths believe, releases a force, probably electromagnetic (among other evidence, electromagnetic fields prevent remedies from acting), that otherwise lies dormant within the original substance. This liberation of energy permits a greater number of natural substances to be transformed into remedies that can act therapeutically. There are now at least three thousand remedies available."
Goldsmith's purpose here is not to explore this issue in any detail here but to pursue his own argument concerning the problems in health care as a whole. Nevertheless, there is an issue of credibility and the suspension of the normal critical disbelief is required. This is, I think, the central point of the book as a whole (I believe I am required to mention that I have been sent a copy of this book for review, although that is not the law in the country where I live). Homeopathy has received an incredibly hostile reception from much of the rest of the medical profession, largely because its critical premises challenge so much of he hard-won knowledge and experience of those concerned.
I approached this book (and I retain this approach now that I have finished reading it) in a spirit of critical openness. I have, after all, lived for years in countries where many people turn first to oriental rather than western medicine and where even the best educated people profess belief in all kinds of supernatural occurrences - homeopathy is not to be equated with the supernatural but the two do both challenge existing scientific thinking. Comparing our knowledge of physics, chemistry and biology with what was known and taught when I was a boy reveals huge differences. The simple forms of causality we were brought to understand in the past no longer apply in a universe of quantum mechanics. Besides which, if homeopathy really does work in some cases, then surely that must be a good thing since it releases people from the misery and imprisonment of ill-health and that is a goal much to be willed. So can it be believed? In my home country, the National Health Service (one of the wonders of the modern world) provides funding for homeopathy in the teeth of the anger of many physicians, although with the support of the Prince of Wales. Goldsmith provides examples from his own practice, which specifically deals with the complex issues of mental health, as well as some papers in the peer-reviewed academic journals. He talks about the epistemological difficulties involved in persuading well-trained people to believe something counter-intuitive and he is right to do so: unfortunately, the way he assembles his argument does not really help in this process. The assemblage is reasonable enough but relies to too great an extent on the fact that exceptions or outliers suggest that an underlying premise should be rejected. Instead, an attempt to explain anomalies within the existing framework should take place. I am aware, as I write this, that attempting to explain any anomalous exceptions to a rule is not the way to create a best-seller. Nevertheless, I would have preferred a little more of this.
There is the second problem of lack of attention given to the importance of changes in environmental conditions and their impacts on expectations and aspirations when it comes to health. Until very recently, people died in their thirties (younger for women facing problems with childbirth and men expected to fight or follow dangerous occupations) and so did not have time to develop or worry about long-term degenerative ailments. The thousand aches and pains to which flesh is heir would kill or not and, if they did not, then probably a wild animal, workplace accident or act of violence would do the trick. Mental health problems would be taken as the act of unkind spirits and dealt with accordingly - it still is in many parts of the country where I live. Above all, perhaps, the deeply dysfunctional nature of the American healthcare industry, organized by and for profit-making corporations with heavy incentives to increase the number of interventions and treatments and not to cure patients, is not properly addressed. These are issues that for me should be considered more than or at least in parallel with the central question of the credibility of homeopathy as a whole.
Overall, this is either a very well-written book or a well-written book with an excellent editor, showing a great deal of sensible and erudite thinking exposed by such details as the choice of epigraphs, the use of pronouns and the structure and progression of the argument. I cannot imagine a much better defence for homeopathy and its virtues than this. It is thoughtful, eloquent and persuasive. It is also worthy of a wide audience and I hope the author, editor and publisher achieve this.
December 5, 2017
Dr. Steven Goldsmith’s The Healing Paradox is an interesting read. I don’t find it revolutionary in terms of treatment—if what he advocated worked for diseases such as cancer or diabetes, we would all know about it-- but it is important in terms of pointing out the limitations of the way traditional medicine views disease as separate and distinct from the person and his or her environment. The sections on the history of medicine are also interesting. In fact, many doctors, while subscribing to the traditional medical model, practice more of a holistic view in their own lives, running, eating well, and doing other health-promoting activities such as meditation. But the diagnosis of what is wrong in contemporary medicine was more thought-provoking than any of Dr. Goldsmith’s approaches to curing disease through homeopathy.
May 26, 2022
Most of the book was way over my head but I did enjoy the author’s stories.
November 13, 2013
The Healing Paradox provides a bright look at modern medicine while offering a new perspective.
Why are many ill despite the progressive nature of modern medicine? Why does the logical approach to treatment and recovery sometimes fail? Under Medicine’s watch, the Western world has become an “…increasingly exhausted, obese, lame, chronically pained, wheezing, neurotic, and medication-addicted population.” In this analytical debut, Dr. Goldsmith challenges conventional thoughts regarding medical treatment, while introducing a never before discussed paradox.
Arguably, it seems natural to combat illness with a fight—and essentially eliminate it through this process; however Goldstein shows that working with, rather than against, whatever ails your body is the way to go. So why are many still sick? The answer may be as simple as this: medicine after the ninetieth century moved from a harmonistic process to a state of disharmony, thus involving treatments and substances that do not balance with the external world. The author argues that it’s human natural to separate disease from our inner-selves; yet, much like other notions we share about disease, this “personified adversary is an illusion.” To wish to obliterate a disease (and actually do it) is much like killing or suppressing parts of ourselves. The question is: could it be possible that embracing illness is part of maintaining good health? Perhaps becoming well also involves working with illness, not against it.
This new look into the dichotomy between natural and unnatural healing treatments is extremely thought-provoking. Dr. Goldsmith offers vast clinical and epidemiological data, experimental results, and numerous case studies to solidify his theory, and suggest that a new approach to modern medicine would be beneficial. What most MD’s (and even ourselves) may think is a terrible approach to recovery—just might be the cure.
Overall this is a great book, recommended to anyone looking for alternatives to “traditional” medical treatments and schools of thought. The author does an incredible job uncovering a possible truth and breakthrough within the world of holistic medicine.
Why are many ill despite the progressive nature of modern medicine? Why does the logical approach to treatment and recovery sometimes fail? Under Medicine’s watch, the Western world has become an “…increasingly exhausted, obese, lame, chronically pained, wheezing, neurotic, and medication-addicted population.” In this analytical debut, Dr. Goldsmith challenges conventional thoughts regarding medical treatment, while introducing a never before discussed paradox.
Arguably, it seems natural to combat illness with a fight—and essentially eliminate it through this process; however Goldstein shows that working with, rather than against, whatever ails your body is the way to go. So why are many still sick? The answer may be as simple as this: medicine after the ninetieth century moved from a harmonistic process to a state of disharmony, thus involving treatments and substances that do not balance with the external world. The author argues that it’s human natural to separate disease from our inner-selves; yet, much like other notions we share about disease, this “personified adversary is an illusion.” To wish to obliterate a disease (and actually do it) is much like killing or suppressing parts of ourselves. The question is: could it be possible that embracing illness is part of maintaining good health? Perhaps becoming well also involves working with illness, not against it.
This new look into the dichotomy between natural and unnatural healing treatments is extremely thought-provoking. Dr. Goldsmith offers vast clinical and epidemiological data, experimental results, and numerous case studies to solidify his theory, and suggest that a new approach to modern medicine would be beneficial. What most MD’s (and even ourselves) may think is a terrible approach to recovery—just might be the cure.
Overall this is a great book, recommended to anyone looking for alternatives to “traditional” medical treatments and schools of thought. The author does an incredible job uncovering a possible truth and breakthrough within the world of holistic medicine.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews