About

This blog is created by one person with a mission. Tracy Kolenchuk (me) is a single person, not paid by any corporation or special interest. I am retired – and my goal is not to make money. My goal is to change the world. I am happy to work with others, but they must accept the goal.

This blog is about HEALTHICINE.  The concept of healthicine grew from discussions on the blog Personal Health Freedom.com, to the point where I realized that many of my posts were more about healthicine than about health freedom. Thus – a blog about healthicine.

To participate in the exploration of healthicine, LIKE it on Facebook. To learn more about the concepts of HEALTHICINE, check the Principles of Healthicine tab and explore this site.

After about two years, I consolidated information from Healthicine posts on both sites, into a book, and later a second  introductory book about healthicine.  You can learn about healthicine bit by bit, by reviewing these blog posts, or purchase one of the books for a wider, deeper understanding of the concepts.

I am currently working on a third book: The Healthicine Creed.  A book that focuses on what I believe, on what I believe we need to believe, if we are to find health.  Most importantly: “Every illness can be cure. No disease can be cured.”

Healthicine: The Book

This blog is written and edited by Tracy Kolenchuk, who you can reach at: tracychess@hotmail.com. If you are interested in writing for Healthicine.org, check out this link.

————————————-  comments archived ——————————

  1. bill wilde says:

    I just arrived at your blog from a comment on Dr. Mercola’s site. This is impressive. I’m sure to visit again.

  2. Eelco Toxpeus says:

    A great initiative and contribution to transform our thinking about (holistic) health and redefine our Healthcare system

  • DF

    Hi Tracy,

    am reading your book on Amazon (the preview) and came across a few misspellings of the word health without the “l”spelling heath. Thought you might want to know. Love your writings, kind of envious actually, you know the positive envy … admiration I suppose. I think you are onto something big here, and it’s perfectly suited to these times we’re in. Oh, and before I forget… in the film http://www.billionsinchange.com Manoj talsk about the development of a device built to support health… must see.
    Also, in terms of the notion that there are no health experts, there might be some that come closer than others. I’m particularly thinking of Dr John McDougall of Santa Rosa California drmcdougall.com and Dr Michael Klaper http://doctorklaper.com/ and some others loosely associated with them. There is also the true north clinic in Santa Rosa.

    • Thanks very much for the comments. I don’t have an ‘editor’ so spelling type errors are always an issue.. It is unfortunate that ‘heath’ is a word, so it doesn’t get flagged by my spellcheck. I’m currently working on a third book, The Healthicine Creed, and I guess I’ll need to do a scan for ‘heath’ before I publish. If I am updating the others, I’ll make a point of the same test.

      I will take some time to check out the references you’ve suggested.

      I do know that there are many doctors who have a ‘health based’ approach to medicine. I want more. Doctors want to treat patients. I want to health the planet. I am not a doctor, which, with my extensive analysis of ‘health’ independent of illness, gives me a very different viewpoint than medical professionals.

      One of they key tests for someone who claims to be speaking about health, in my mind, is to ask them how we might measure and improve someone’s spiritual health. Today we give them anti-depressants, which push down the depression (not lifting up the health) and eventually there is a rebound, which often leads to suicide, or worse. The concepts of spiritual health, and spiritual unhealthiness (room for improvement in spiritual health) simply does not exist in medicine.

      The second aspect of health that is totally ignored by all medical professionals is community health. WHO studies ‘illness of individuals in communities’, and calls the inverse of what they find ‘community health’. It’s simply nonsense. Community health has two sides, the healthiness of our individual relationships with our communities, and the health of our communities. From a medical perspective, there are no community illnesses – genocide, homicide, racism, are not considered ‘unhealthy’. Remember that I view ‘unhealthiness’ as ‘room for improvement’. Community healthiness, and community healthiness are totally unexplored by our medical systems.

      To my mind our communities include all living things and all living communities on the planet, and our health depends on the health of all of those communities. I think it is impossible to find a single medical doctor who could address these issues – maybe health, at the levels of mind, spirit, and community, cannot be addressed by medicines.

      Thanks again for the note. I don’t get a lot of feedback, positive or negative..

      • DF

        Thank you Tracy for your very interesting reply. Health is truly a fascinating topic 🙂

      • arielmonserrat

        Dear Tracy Chess: Just read your article on cancer and am impressed! I was publisher and managing editor of a popular magazine on alternative ideas for many years. I’ve always been good at spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc. I’m willing to edit your book for any errors such as spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc. FOR FREE, as I believe in your work and in alternative treatments for cancer especially. I’ve lost many dear friends to cancer because they didn’t have info on other treatments so they did chemo. The word needs to be spread and if I can help to contribute to more knowledge about actual health treatments that really work, I’m happy to do so.
        Contact me at: greeneggzine@gmail.com
        Good luck and keep writing – the world needs to hear what you have to say!!!

  • Mike McDermott

    Dear Tracy,

    I refer to your post on Evonomics about four months ago, in response to Liu and Hanauer’s New Blueprint.

    Recently Waterstones, the London booksellers, very generously gave me a book called “The Human Prospect” (1956, Martin Secker and Warburg, London). That book contained an essay called “Individuation and Socialization”. Your post reminded me of that essay.

    Unlike much of Mumford’s work, that essay is not on the web. Here it is.

    All the Best, Mike.

    Individuation and Socialization
    By
    Lewis Mumford

    The modes of sociality and individuality are undergoing radical changes. In the past, each of these attitudes stood for a whole theory of society: they came before us as social and political philosophies, clustered around the dogmas of private property and individual liberty that had taken shape in the eighteenth century. They were looked upon as alternatives. Individualism was a theory that believed in the existence of atomic individuals as a primary fact. It held that these individuals had an inherent right to possess property and enjoy personal protection under the laws, and that no laws abrogating that species of personal freedom founded upon private property were valid. Socialism, in all its diverse manifestations, regarded the community as the primary fact, and it treated the welfare of the community as more important than the claims of any atomic individual to special protection or sustenance.

    In actual practice, both these doctrines, during the last century, presented a sinister aspect. Masquerading under the noble slogan of the rights of man, pretending to continue its old war on despotic power, individualism established itself as the claim of small groups of privileged people to exploit the works of other men on the basis of a monopoly, partial or complete, of land, capital, credit, and the machinery of production. For the single despotism of the king, it substituted a multitude of petty, and not so petty, despots: industrialists, financiers, robber barons. “Socialism,” on the other hand, has meant in practice the unlimited capacity of the govern- ment and the armed forces of the state to impose obedience and co-operation upon its subjects in time of war: pushed to its extreme, it becomes the state-deification of fascism and the unity of war-dictatorship. “Individualism” rested on the doctrine of the “free market” in which price exercises the function of an almighty providence; “socialism” rested on the doctrine of the closed frontier, in which every human activity within, thought itself, is subjected to state monopoly. The inequalities of the first and the uniformities of the second were equally oppressive to a good society.

    In the senses in which individualism and socialism have gained currency, both are mythological distortions of the underlying facts of community life: the processes of individuation and socialization. In actuality, these terms are alternatives only in the sense that north and south are alternatives. They indicate directions of motion, without giving any descriptive reference to the goal to be reached. No human society is conceivable in which, to some degree, both tendencies did not play an active part.
    As concerns origins, the social theory is largely correct: society exists as a fact in nature, and without an underlying symbiosis no single individual could survive. The more primitive the state of existence, the greater the influence of brute compulsion and irrational but coercive taboo. The separation of the individual from the generic is a social fact that occurs only in those socialized animals that have some extra-organic means of inheritance; otherwise individuality is a matter of accident and latent tendency. Only through specific social heritage, beginning with the art of language, can individuation arise. The individual, left to himself, is not a source. Left to himself, indeed, he would starve, go mad.

    As concerns emergents, however, the theory of individuation is a fact. When the apparatus of socialization becomes more adequate, through language, through the written word, through the division of labor, through the development of cities, special forms arise in the hitherto less differentiated mass. Each group, each community, each vocation, each habitat creates new patterns of individuality: by their interaction in the close medium of the city, they provide endless permutations and combinations in all its members. The common environment provides an underlying unity: the city itself may become the cohesive symbol of that unity: but within that common environment all the differentiations of a true culture arise with a wealth of example hitherto unexplored. Through intermixture of stocks and races in the city, the biological inheritance, in turn, combines with the equally complicated facts of social inheritance: these facts are individuated from moment to moment as personal experience. For practical purposes one often forgets the fact of individuation: but by intercourse with a de-individuated person, whose full human inheritance has been ideologically castrated, one realizes the difference between the deadened oneness of totalitarian doctrine and the vital and many-faceted product of a genuine community, in which social conflicts and cultural intermixtures play an active part.

    Both individuation and socialization must be respected in the design of cities and their separate structures. Unfortunately, working under the false mythology of individualism, our modern capitalist societies have in the past assigned values to “individual effort” in precisely those departments where standardized practices and socialized controls are necessary. The right of an individual property owner to obtain by purchase or inheritance a parcel of land, and to use it entirely at his own pleasure under minor legal regulation, has been treated as sacrosanct; and the gains that have followed the collective procedures of science, the collective discoveries of technics, have been permitted to go, like ground rents, to lucky or rapacious individuals, when they should in fact have been kept in trust for the community. In a similar way, laissez-faire principles encouraged the individual prospecting for industrial sites, the individual parcelling of ground, the individual owning and building of houses, although all of these are in essence collective functions which are preparatory to true individuation. Indeed, individuation cannot enter in a cultural sense until a good part of our activities are reduced to a mechanized or socialized routine: only by multiplying the functions of the spinal cord, making them automatic, can the higher functions of the brain be realized. This is the essential truth underlying Aristotle’s otherwise barbarous remark that a good polity must rest on slavery.

    Under an equally mythological sort of socialization, whether taken in the interest of a ruling financial class or the power state, the reverse of this tendency has been practiced. The state attempts to impose uniformity and “socialization” in matters of education, intellectual culture, and political judgement where, with the common pattern of the civilization (which “enforces” itself), a wide span of individuations should be encouraged. Contrary to the prevailing doctrine, no special measures should be taken, other than the common process of discovering and systematizing truth, to extirpate obsolete religions, discarded scientific doctrines, idiosyncrasies and aberrant beliefs: since it is sometimes by unexpected combinations in our social inheritance, or unorthodox re-interpretations of past beliefs, that important mutations are made. The tendencies making for human uniformity are indeed so deep, so abiding, that it is only by providing for free play in individuation that we can avoid the sessile habits, the dangerous encystments, of past civilizations.

    Every community must attempt in its structure to reconcile stability and adaptation, standardization and flexibility, socialization and individuation. None of these qualities is a terminal point in objective.: they are directions of movement and change. Good planning is an attempt to keep the whole environment in a state of dynamic equilibrium, in which discipline does not mean an even more vacuous death.

    The great aristocracies of the past knew that the labor of a thousand serfs, the accumulations of vast congeries of buildings, with all the necessary land for their support, might not be too extravagant a price to pay for the culture of a truly enlightened and disciplined individual: in the long run, the millions would profit. But because of the social inequality and the bitter injustice of these arrangements, such aristocracies but rarely produced a Plato. Today, with our vast accession of energies, with our abundant collective resources, we have the opportunity of upholding these principles, not for the sake of an oligarchy, but for the welfare of every member of the community. The base must be generic, equalized, standardized, communal; the emergent must be specific, unstandardized, individual, aristocratic; differentiated groups, differentiated individuals, differentiated regional and civic communities.

    • Very interesting MIke. Thanks. I have read it once, and will again….