Maq Masi Blog

Most disagreements in medicine do not arise because one system is right and another is wrong. They arise because disease itself is poorly understood. Before choosing remedies, methods, or therapies, we must first ask a more fundamental question: what exactly is disease?

Disease is both a thing and a process. It becomes a recognisable condition because an underlying biological process has lost regulation and stabilised into a persistent state. What we diagnose as disease is the visible outcome of disturbed biochemical regulation within the body.

Symptoms are not the disease itself. They are the outputs. Pain, inflammation, fatigue, hormonal imbalance, growths, anxiety, degeneration, or metabolic disorders are how a dysregulated system expresses itself. Treating symptoms without understanding the regulatory process behind them often leads to temporary relief but long-term confusion.

If we observe the human body carefully, it functions as a deterministic biochemical system. Physiological processes are activated or inhibited. Hormones increase or decrease. Neurotransmitters fire or remain silent. Enzymes accelerate or slow reactions. Nothing happens without cause, even if that cause is complex, delayed, or not yet fully measurable.

Modern medicine already works with this reality. High and low blood pressure are not different diseases in essence; they are opposite states of the same regulatory mechanism. The same applies to high and low blood sugar, hyper- and hypothyroidism, excess or deficiency of cortisol, exaggerated inflammation or immune suppression. These are not moral failures. They are regulatory imbalances.

What is often overlooked is that many earlier medical thinkers recognised this long before the language of biochemistry or systems biology existed. They observed the same reality from different levels and described it using the concepts available to them at the time.

Samuel Hahnemann was among the first to reject purely material explanations of disease. He described illness as a derangement of the vital force. Stripped of later misunderstandings, this can be read as an early attempt to describe global regulatory failure. When regulation is intact, the body responds proportionately. When it is disturbed, responses become excessive, insufficient, delayed, or chaotic. His principle of similitude and potentised remedies aimed to influence regulation, not merely suppress symptoms. Whether one accepts all aspects of his theory or not, his central insight — that disease is dynamic and systemic — remains relevant.

Count Cesare Mattei approached disease from a more systemic and circulatory perspective. He described illness as vitiation of blood and lymph. In modern terms, blood and lymph are not just fluids; they are major transport systems for biochemical signals, immune mediators, nutrients, and metabolic information. When Mattei spoke of vitiation, he was describing disruption in the body’s communication and distribution network. His electro-homeopathic complexes, described in terms of positive and negative forces, were an early attempt to rebalance opposing physiological activities across the whole organism rather than focus narrowly on isolated organs.

Dr Wilhelm Heinrich Schüssler shifted attention to the cellular level. He observed that normal cell function depends on the correct distribution of inorganic mineral salts. Deficiency or misdistribution of these salts interferes with cellular transport, enzymatic activity, and signalling. In modern language, Schüssler was describing biochemical regulation at the intracellular interface. His tissue salts were not intended as crude supplementation, but as functional supports for cellular communication and balance.

Dr Edward Bach later highlighted another dimension often underestimated in medicine: emotion. He observed that persistent emotional states such as fear, grief, resentment, indecision, or hopelessness often precede physical illness. Emotions are not abstract experiences detached from the body; they are biochemical events that influence hormones, immunity, metabolism, and nervous regulation. Bach flower remedies were designed to address emotional regulatory states, particularly where prolonged emotional imbalance might distort physiological responses. While the precise mechanisms remain debated, the clinical relevance of emotional influence on health is now widely acknowledged.

Dr Hans-Heinrich Reckeweg introduced the element of time and progression through homotoxicology. He described disease as the result of cumulative stressors overwhelming the body’s regulatory capacity. Early responses may be adaptive and protective, but if the load persists, these responses can become pathological and eventually structural. His phases of disease illustrated how regulatory disturbance evolves, and his use of complex remedies reflected the reality that regulation often fragments across multiple systems in chronic illness.

These approaches were never truly contradictory. They were incomplete when taken in isolation.

Hahnemann focused on global regulation.

Mattei focused on systemic transport and circulation.

Schüssler focused on cellular biochemical capacity.

Bach focused on emotional regulatory states.

Reckeweg focused on chronic overload and progression.

Each observed a different level of the same biological system.

What remains incomplete — even today — is a fully unified understanding that integrates all these levels seamlessly. Biology is extraordinarily complex, and no model captures it entirely. Our knowledge continues to evolve, and humility is essential.

From this perspective, disease can be understood as a failure or misalignment of biochemical regulation. Illness arises when regulatory signals become overstimulated, suppressed, delayed, misrouted, or exhausted under the influence of unstable inputs.

Humans are particularly vulnerable to this because they do not operate under uniform conditions. Unlike machines powered by consistent electricity, humans are influenced by food, drink, sleep, work, environment, emotion, desire, stress, and social context. These inputs are variable and often contradictory. Emotional and behavioural patterns further modify biochemical thresholds, sometimes subtly, sometimes profoundly.

This does not mean disease is a personal fault. It means the human system is adaptive but finite. The body compensates until it can no longer do so efficiently. Disease emerges not suddenly, but gradually, as regulation drifts beyond sustainable limits.

From this understanding, treatment must be approached with care.

No therapy cures disease in isolation. Every intervention — whether pharmaceutical, homeopathic, nutritional, emotional, or supportive — acts by modifying biochemical regulation in some way. It succeeds only when it addresses the relevant regulatory disturbance at the appropriate time and intensity.

This is why no single medical system can be universally sufficient. Single remedies, complex formulations, mineral supports, emotional interventions, lifestyle changes, or conventional treatments all have contexts where they may help — and contexts where they may fail. Holistic practice does not mean using everything. It means understanding what level of regulation is disturbed and choosing interventions with restraint.

Equally important is recognising the limits of current knowledge. Not every mechanism is fully understood. Some therapies work clinically before their pathways are clearly mapped. Others fail despite theoretical promise. Medicine advances not through certainty, but through careful observation, integration, and willingness to revise assumptions.

Understanding disease as biochemical regulation does not replace existing therapies. It provides a way to think more clearly about when and why they might work.

Disease is real.

Symptoms are meaningful.

Regulation is central.

And understanding must come before intervention.

That, perhaps, is the most reliable foundation medicine can offer.

---

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are offered for educational and reflective purposes only. They represent a conceptual framework for understanding disease and do not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. The therapies and historical approaches discussed are presented in a contextual and analytical manner, not as endorsements or prescriptions.

Health conditions vary widely between individuals, and no single model or therapeutic system can address all circumstances. Readers should not use this article as a substitute for professional medical care and should seek appropriate clinical advice for diagnosis, treatment, or management of any health condition.

Medical understanding continues to evolve. While every effort has been made to present ideas responsibly and in good faith, the interpretations shared here reflect ongoing inquiry rather than definitive conclusions.