By Harry Chrissakis , Herbalist


Just how do you combine age old medical systems (both east and west) with what might be considered their modern counterparts. The major hurdle is creating a system that fluidly integrates smaller pieces into a larger picture that is as equally dynamic and responsive as the human body it is trying to define. Not easy to do. Traditional medical sciences in China developed over centuries of interactions between different schools of thought, eventually producing the synthesis TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine). This is also true of Ayurvedic and Tibetan Medicine. In these cultures, ancient art and science were inseparable. One furthered the other. This is a huge thing. As in the saying “The human mind, once stretched by knowledge and understanding can never go back to where it was”. I’m hopeful, and the reason why I am hopeful is because I believe there is something here now. That something is a system developed by Donnie Yance and is known as the Eclectic Triphasic Medical System. ETMS represents an excellent synthesis of ancient Chinese medicine, Eclectic and Physiomedicalism (American, roughly 1820 to 1920 before the AMA destroyed them with legislation) and tons and tons of modern scientific research on plant pharmacology (herbal medicine), supplement use, nutrition and medical research. This system does not deny the use of pharmaceutical drugs. In my opinion it puts them in their proper place. Western medicine is an acute crisis care model. The drug model is really for short term use. This model does not hold up well in the treatment of chronic disease.  Doctors use heavy guns. That is the style of Allopathic medicine. In the right place it is almost miraculous what drugs can do. Improper application can be injurious and possible lethal.

The use of diagnostic and prognostic technology is very upfront in ETMS. This also makes a great deal of sense.  What is of discernible difference is that ETMS demands a lot more of it than is generally done. Also, it is not just amounts of information collected, but the exquisite way it is put together to come up with a protocol. This difference, in terms of collecting enough data, between Standard Practice care and ETMS is huge. You need a lot of solid information to make an intelligent decision in relationship to developing protocol in something as complicated as cancer, and that information is attainable right now. It is just not being done because of the model of approach being used by modern Oncology.

The reason for gathering this amount of info is as follows. Let’s say you have cancer and you need chemo and radiation. The amount of information that modern oncology bases its decision on which drug and or how much radiation to use is at best totally insufficient. This is one of the major reasons the approach often fails. Much of the information gathered by ETMS can be used to determine things about the cancer; i.e. multi-drug/and or radio resistance.  Multi drug/radio resistance means the drugs/radiation will do nothing to the cancer, just further weaken the patient. There are 2 tests available in terms of radio resistance, first is CA- 9 and second is HIF. These tests are not esoteric by any means.  Another area that is grossly overlooked is blood quality. Specifically, the viscosity of the blood. All chemotherapeutic drugs thicken blood. (they increase the production of fibrin and enhance clotting). Why do 10%+ of chemo patients die from clots. Because of insufficient testing or the inability to read the relationship of test a to drug b.  Teaching and learning is not just about fact finding, it is also about conceptualization. You have to see how things connect before you really understand them. The connectedness of modern physiology, its wholism, is waiting to be practiced by modern medicine. Research is great, practice is not. Another area that is completely overlooked is the ability to determine beforehand, if a patient can both metabolize and excrete a drug properly. This can be done both through Genomic and SNP testing. If you give the drug CPT- 11(a chemo agent also known as Irinotecan) to a person who cannot metabolize or excrete it properly, it can kill them. If there is a defect in the SNP  UGT1A1 (genetic marker) then CPT- 11 is very dangerous to that person. That particular test is rarely done before administration of CPT- 11. The test is neither expensive or time consuming and is within total reach of any Oncologist. It is like throwing dice with that person’s life. This cavalier attitude toward death is exhibited in the general application of chemo. The dosages are so high and given so often that the basic premise is that you poison the cancer  (and the patient’s body)  so much that you hope you killed all the cancer and not patient. Unfortunately, the percentages of deaths, really due to the toxicity of the approach, shows this to be a bad idea. This type of guess work is plain dangerous. Another rather interesting thing is the fact that if you die due to a heart attack or stroke as a result of radiation (this can happen years afterward) then your death is registered as a stroke or heart attack, without the etiology of cancer. This has an effect on overall cancer stats. What I am saying is there are more deaths due to cancer than is being shown and that number could be as high as 25 thousand more people who actually died from the results of treatment and should also be included into cancer death rate.( Presently 650,00 per year in the U.S. )

Western physiology can and should be viewed as a holistic science. It actually is, but due to the overindulgence of the pharmaceutical industry and its unfortunate affiliations with large scale modern medicine, which includes reaching into Medical Educational institutions and Dr’s offices , there is no cohesive, comprehensive physiologic model in practice. Everything has been taken away from the art of diagnosis. A factory approach replaced it and Doctors are reduced to craftsman or worse, high paid factory workers.  You do what the book says. Slightly high cholesterol=statins , High blood pressure = ace inhibitors and a diuretic. Is that healing?  Often, both of these problems can be handled well without the use of pharmaceuticals. Natural medicine is slower and puts a certain degree of responsibility on the patient. Healing is a joint effort. The body does not make deals, it follows the laws that natural medicine is working with. A frontal approach (standard practice medicine) has real strength in an acute crisis, but may induce other bigger problems down the road if it is used on a long term basis. Risk and benefit need to be reevaluated in light of a new model. One that puts health first and that understands that health is not just the absence of disease, but about a dynamic state of existence.

Studying a person’s cancer is like sluething on a very intelligent criminal. Think of someone who robs banks for a living. That particular criminal didn’t start with something as complicated as a bank. He had to learn and acquire tools. He had to recruit other people to help. It all takes time, planning and the ability to capitalize on opportunity. It takes an infrastructure and organization that is focusing on the desired goal. Western Medicine is not studying that infrastructure properly. Why would you attack a foe at their strongest point (standard practice oncology). You could easily lose (especially with active aggressive cancers). What happens when you remove roads, bridges, factories; basic supply routes to the bad guys. The bad guys get weaker, more vulnerable and in cancers case less active. Thing with cancer is if you block road a, it goes to road b. It is an opportunistic, thinking adversary. The cancer has captured the brain of the cell (DNA) and is manipulating it to its advantage. The smarter it is allowed to become the more info it access which it uses to kill you with. (This singular point is of critical importance for the general public to grasp). This behooves the practitioner to collect a lot of data and plug up as many of the holes as possible. Cancer is working 24/7. It is very determined and it is in a state of evolution. It is continuing to develop it power, intelligence and strength. In order to do this, it has to be given the tools and opportunity to continue. Natural medicines job is to find out what particular things are driving that particular cancer in that particular person in order to remove those tools and the opportunities they grant the cancer. It really becomes that subjectively objective. This process takes a lot of homework for the practitioner. Right now I see no other way. I do not believe the study of genetics is going to find a cure for cancer, because cancer is a systemic disease. Only the immune system can cure cancer. What natural medicine does to the cancer is to try to shut it up, put it in the corner, and keep an eye on it while managing it. It is possible to stay ahead of the cancer. It is possible to put cancer in the back seat. This process cannot work without patients being hands on. There is work and responsibility put into their lap, but nothing which is beyond their capacity to do. There is so much more possible right now. Changing perception is no small job and that is a major part of what is necessary.


Harry Chrissakis, Herbalist