Talk:Wellness

Response to User:CDN99: Even the idea of having Wellness occupy only one page is controversial. I'm open to talking of ways to organize Wellness as a topic, but I'm against having it integrated into Mental health. I daresay the vast majority of alternative medicine proponents would decline to equate the two. Said proponents see the term "mental health" as reductive while the term "wellness" is holistic. The difference is one of emphasis: mental health emphasizes the mind (or brain) as an independent unit while in wellness the body, mind, and spirit are seen as an indivisible whole. This view should not be discounted offhandedly, nor can it be silenced. --Smithfarm 14:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you think about merge/redirecting wellness (medicine) to mental health, and moving wellness (alternative medicine) to Wellness? (oops, --CDN99 19:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC))
 * (Presumably replying to User:CDN99:) I would be for it. As has been said elsewhere, conventional medicine treats "wellness" as a synonym for "health" (or "mental health"). The person who originally split it up and created the disambig page has apparently been banned. --Smithfarm 18:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, and sorry for being a tad over-zealous in editing these articles. Does goethean have an opinion on the above suggestion? --CDN99 19:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem...I wasn't aware that the situation was being remedied when I wrote the below comment. To me, wellness seems seperate from mental health. Whether there need to be two seperate wellness articles seems much less clear. So the above solution is fine with me. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm redirecting wellness {medicine) to health and moving wellness (alternative medicine) to wellness. Hopefully the talk pages will still be intact. --CDN99 04:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy redirection of this article
According to Wikipedia guidelines, only patent nonsense, accidental redundancy, trivia articles, and topics that have no potential of becoming a full article are eligible for speedy redirection. Wellness does not fall into any of these categories. Therefore, User:CDN99's redirection of the Wellness articles &mdash; assuming that no vote was held, which I can find no evidence of &mdash; was illegitimate and should be reversed. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC) ya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.26.149.246 (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's finish the job
I propose we do the following: (1) move the content of Wellness (alternative medicine) to Wellness, (2) change Wellness (alternative medicine) to redirect to Wellness. Since Wellness (medicine) is already a redirect to Health, there's no point in having a disambiguation page. As I understand it, I am just reiterating what has already been agreed. --Smithfarm 22:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Wellness is not the absence of illness
If you were asked "How are you?" the answer would probably be "I'm well thank you." That because we have been conditioned to think that if we are not ill, then we are well.

If wellness is not the absence of illness, then what is wellness? When we ask this question as an inquiry rather than an assertion, we can see we are not really clear about wellness.

To understand wellness, we first have to understand illness. Illness could be said to exist when one or more body parts are not functioning or not functioning properly. The effect of the body part not functioning properly is what usually manifests itself as ‘illness’ and we go to a doctor to cure it. Under illness conditions, we can not function in the usual, normal, comfortable manner. Let’s call it the ‘consequence’ of under performance of body part. Often it’s bad enough to have to take bed rest and ofcourse, medicine. This is common wisdom.

What does the medicine do? If we are rigorous about this, we will see that inevitably, medicine attenuates, mitigates or eliminates the consequence. And we think we are cured. Only to find the problem recur, sometimes often & frequently and at other times, rarely. But the question is, did the medicine cure the malfunction of the body part or did the power of nature, the God given power of the body itself cure (or improve) the part while getting symptomatic relief from the medicine? Perhaps even some support by the medicine?

This is more readily evident when it comes to what could be called ‘primary’ diseases. Like Cancer, Diabetes, etc. Here orthodox medicine admits to having no cure (yet). Without raising any shackles, it would be reasonable to say that drugs have not been able to cure the illness.

Scientific research has indeed shown that the treatment of cancer using enzyme therapy with condition specific nutrition has given terminal cases that orthodox medicine gives a prognosis of 60 days have gone on to live for 11+ years! Ofcourse, this can not be considered a cure. But ultimately, in a disease like cancer, length and quality of life is perhaps the only practical and reasonable thing to measure.

Startling as this may sound, our research of research conducted world wide is the basis of this statement. What is even more unsettling is that this treatment of cancer was first discovered and practised by a Dr. John Beard in 1911. That’s almost a hundred years ago! Given the politics of medicine, this amazing discovery went underground. Then, in 1961 a Dr. William Donald Kelly, a dentist by training, picked up this amazing treatment procedure to the benefit of thousands of patients which he very carefully documented. In 1981, Dr. Nicolas J. Gonzalez took over from the ageing Dr Kelly and since 1987 runs a practice that is operational even today in New York, USA. The NCI – National Cancer Institute, USA has conducted several investigations into this practice and found them all true and proven. Thousands of cancer patients have lived long after their prognosis by orthodox medicine, thanks to this practice. All this is easily searched on the web & verified.

Then why has this not captured the imagination of the orthodox medical world? Why have funds not poured into progressing this approach? That, dear reader, is the politics of medicine.

The central point worth taking away is that the approach to “naturally helping the body heal itself”, indeed keeping it from malfunctioning in the first place, is not only more effective, but with the loss of nutritional value of our daily food has become imperative to the 21st century man. JS Bangalore 06:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)J Srinivasan Wellness India