google-site-verification=83uPXmpaAdS6WdUB0JG_y1zS1f5bPAWKHfrR1HaAaBo

 Contact Us                                                                     Quick Links                                          Stay Connected

 

Health for Everyone

 

Höör, Ekenäsvägen 22, 243 32                                                              Classes

info@healthforeveryone.se                                                                     

                                                                                                                  Blog                                                                Videos

@2022  Health for Everyone

                                                                                                          Our Team                                                               Contact

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

 Stages in the patient's healing:

 

  1. Research with own equipment in order to confirm or refute the diagnosis;

  2. Bioenergetic analysis of the state of energy meridians and chakras, as well as visualization of the patient's aura;

  3. Identifying the possible cause of the disease, starting from the questions: "Why did this problem appear?", "Why was this function lost?" "What can we do to regain this function?" by using all the principles of Integrative Medicine;

  4. Drawing up a patient treatment plan by encouraging the body's normal healing mechanisms, naturally and to ensure the patient a state of increased vitality;

  5. The patient's treatment plan is permanently adapted to his state of health, through the involvement of specialists in the fields of allopathic medicine; nutrition, research, psychology, sociology, pharmaceutical industry, energy medicine, massages, hypnosis, holotropy, etc.

 Do you want to know what we will do for your well-being and health?

Schedule yourself

Before "programming" please fill out Patient Intake Form and send it to info@healthforeveryone.se

In the increasingly busy practice of medicine, the ability to access information quickly and efficiently is critical to obtaining the highest quality data in the shortest amount of time in an effort to improve care for all patients. There are limitations to making decisions based on evidence alone. A limitation is determined by the lack of knowledge of the adverse effects of various drugs applied in various treatments. Even if the evidence for curing a particular disease with a particular drug is of good quality, the potential harm of that intervention may negate its effect. An example of this is the Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study (RALES) published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1999. This study showed that spironolactone significantly improved outcomes in patients with severe heart failure. A subsequent article published in the same journal in 2004 showed that after the publication of this study, the number of prescriptions written for spironolactone increased significantly in Ontario, Canada, from 34 per 1000 patients in 1994 to 149 per 1000 patients in 2001. Thus, Canadian physicians practised evidence-based medicine, and their prescribing habits resonated with this. The follow-up study also noted that despite this evidence-based practice, there was a significant increase in hospital admissions and death rates related to hyperkalemia when spironolactone and ACE inhibitors were used together." (Integrative Medicine, David Rakel). In our Integrative Medicine centre, we apply a rating for the potential harms of medicines. Adding a rating for potential harm will improve the evaluation of the evidence for the clinician, but is by no means a final guideline. Decision-making goes beyond evidence and harm and is based on much broader insights gained through relationship-centred care. It's just a tool that will hopefully make the patient's life a little easier. To classify and grade the evidence we use the SORT criteria, as follows:

 

  Classification of evidence

 

Grade A

Grade B

Grade C

Based on consistent, good quality, patient-oriented evidence

Based on inconsistent or limited quality patient-oriented evidence.

Based on consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence

 

Assessing the potential harms of medicines

 

Unlike classification for evidence, there is no unified and acceptable classification system for injury. To assess the three levels of injury, the following grading scale will be used:

 

Grade 3 (the worst)

Grade 2 (moderate damage)

Grade 1 (the least bad)

This therapy has the potential to result in death or permanent disability.

This therapy has the potential to cause reversible side effects or interact negatively with other therapies.

This therapy has little risk of harm

 

 

  1. en
  2. ro
  3. sv

When you need documented answers, come to us.

Your guide to getting care when you have a diagnosis

Not

Yes

This is how we begin to differentiate between Integrative Medicine and Allopathic Medicine only in the interest of the patient

The following can be observed from the attached balance sheet:

  • If the evidence is strong (A) with the least potential danger (1), the arrow will point up - safe decision;

  •  If the evidence is consistent (A) but moderate harm (2), or the evidence is inconsistent (B) but little harm (1), the arrow will be to the upper right - a relatively safe decision;

  •  If the evidence is either consistent (A), inconsistent (B), or based on consensus (C) and the harms are either bad (3), moderate (2) or least bad (1), the arrow will point to the right horizontal - relatively uncertain decision;

  •  If the evidence is weak (C) with the most potential harm (3), the arrow will point down - an uncertain decision