What’s the useful difference here in regards to our discussion? This immaterial-material
issue begs the question of granting precedence to the power of mind or biochemical
considerations. Despite the squabble, it appears rational to take an even-handed
approach. But when we lose faith, say, in either side, in either industry, finding the
power of mind camp to be insubstantial and fluffy or finding the biochemical camp to
be mechanically greedy, for example, we tend to take radical stances that sacrifice
too much vital attention to one side. In dire situations involving terminal illness, it seems
wise to holistically assess all promising options and lucid data: as much as our peace
and energy permit.
A peaceful mind is important and taking sides can yield harsh or rash consequences.
And we ought not to declare war on our own bodies, as the ‘war on cancer’ lingo
ubiquitously advertises. Any old man still traversing the rough streets can tell you that
diffusing an ill situation does not entail declaring fanatical warfare but requires the
profound strength to exercise the peace to see things clearly and distinctly. It is through
the clear humility of the wiser man’s intention that the loser sees his own weak and
hostile absurdities.
“So, how much of it is mind over matter?” I finally queried. Dr. Cathirose’s response was
ready. “Fifty percent of what we would call ‘beneficial results’ are significantly due to
placebo effect,” she said. She rendered the example of antidepressants and claimed
that between pharmaceuticals, St. John’s Wart, and placebos there marks only a 4%
difference between their effectiveness to deal positive user results. After hearing this, I
was less surprised and more intrigued to hear about her curiosities and philosophy of
healing.
Dr. Cathirose is a masterful synthesizer of data and mindfulness. One of her main
interests is the growing exploratory field of psychoneuroimmunology; a (long word and)
field that looks at the interactions between psychology, neurology, and immunology
and assesses each of their interactions with diseases. Her approach is ‘integrative
scientific’—a smart combination of allopathic and complementary therapies, and her
work judiciously blends her knowledge of Western naturopathy and psychoinvestigations with an Eastern posture of mindfulness associated with karmic law and
downright commonsense.