Over the years HoloLife is fortunate enough to have enjoyed many successes for its clinical studies. But the success raises yet another haunting concern—whether or not the results of our clinical studies can benefit people who need them most. We believe what matters most to users is whether or not they can really get what they have come for. It is a calling of our conscience, not a prerequisite by law.
Is the user guaranteed to get the benefits advertised in drug commercials? Does healing refer to a temporary alleviation or a permanent cure? Will there be side effects? In most cases the answers do not sound as eloquent as the commercials. In September 2010, the Telegraph Newspaper of the UK reported that more than half of patients taking Viagra found it did not solve their problems adequately, and that their low testosterone was to blame. Most doctors, not to mention the general public, simply did not know the fact that low testosterone would render Viagra ineffective. As advertising what a drug can do is permitted by law, what actually happens is that law has played a role in deceiving more than half of those men into wasting money.
As such, the law can do little other than setting some minimal requirements when it comes to addressing claims of drug effectiveness. But there is no guarantee that users will absolutely benefit from the advertised effectiveness. Likewise, the results of clinical studies will not necessarily repeat themselves in every user experience. As far as users are concerned, the only true measure of effectiveness is one that is visible and tangible. Moreover, what users really need is for this effectiveness to bring about a permanent cure.

To attain the greatest possible effectiveness, we believe, it is essential to personally conduct empirical undertakings such as inquiries, counseling for second opinions, observation and recording. Above all, independence and freedom of choice should always dictate the start, continuance and termination of the doctor-patient relationship. What matters most is the almost primitive but fundamental principle of allowing empirical evidence to speak for itself—patients are in the best position to give a verdict over effectiveness. Equally important are the independence of patients and their readiness to be held responsible for their own decisions and choices.


Identify Levels of Effectiveness

First and foremost, it is essential to identify different levels of treatment effectiveness: easing symptoms, identifying the root of the problem, effecting a permanent cure, and eradicating any possibility of relapse. The first level is characterized by the control or alleviation of an illness; generally speaking, this control or alleviation will falter once the treatment process is discontinued. Next is going beyond easing symptoms and getting at the root of the illness
A test of permanent cure can be witnessed if a patient sustains a level of improvement even after treatment is disrupted. A permanent cure, as the phrase indicates, describes the absence of the targeted illness even after treatment has been stopped for quite a while. The definition of eradicating any possibility of relapse should be self-evident enough.
Whenever we have need of medication, we owe our gratitude no matter whichever of the four levels of effectiveness is to be attained at the end of the day. Health and hope will definitely become our rewards so long as we persist with our quest—our endeavors backed by practical experiences and independent choices.


Monitor Self-Healing Indices

When someone is sick, his sleep, appetite, bowel movements, concentration, strength and mood tend to be adversely affected. As he recovers, the affected aspects will also show recuperation as well until his health is fully restored. We call appetite, bowel movements, sleep, strength, span of concentration, and mood the six self-healing indices. To date, we believe, no medical instrument can evaluate these six measures more quickly and accurately than man can himself. Keeping track of changes in these six self-healing indices allows us to determine in which direction an illness is progressing, if the adopted treatment plan is working, and if side effects are taking shape. In other words, this enables us to attain empirical results through first-hand experiences in the capacity of “autonomous patients.”

Conduct Self-Evaluation of SymptomsIt is not uncommon for a doctor to see 50 patients in just three hours, averaging 3.6 minutes for each. In that short span of time, the doctor is supposed to listen to what the patient has to report, make and explain his diagnosis, fill out medical records, and prescribe. Errors should be hardly surprising in such haste. But there is a partial remedy to this. The patient can expect to better protect himself by presenting a more effective description of his symptoms. While an oral report tends to be disorganized, putting it down on paper is a preferable alternative. What should the patient jot down? It should consist of the following:

1. 1. Description of the symptoms, including their position, severity and duration as well as their impact on daily living and work.
2. 2. Frequency of recurrence, e.g. time/day, day/week and x/10. When they describe their symptoms, people tend to opt for either side of a coin: yes or no and the feeling of pain or otherwise. The frequency of recurrence is oftentimes ignored. But the continuously changing frequency of recurrence is really the best measure of how a symptom is evolving. It is also a key barometer of whether the adopted treatment plan is really tackling the root of the illness.
3. 3. Conditions most conducive to recurrence, which are certainly useful for the reference of medical specialists in conducting diagnosis. Moreover, the specialists can also monitor the symptoms readily associated with the aforementioned conditions as treatment progresses. By observing if the symptoms are eased or even eradicated when such conditions do occur, they can determine if their treatment plan can effectively rectify the root of the illness.

Identify Stages of Recuperation & Set Indices of Control and Management

Identification of different stages of returning to health is conducive to setting indices for better monitoring and tracing the treatment process. For example, there should be a maximum waiting period for the condition to start turning for the better. Readjustment of the treatment process is to be allowed only a given number of times when this expected betterment fails to materialize. When and if no further progress is made during a given period of time, it may signify that the greatest possible effectiveness has been achieved and that further progress is all but impossible. True, the length of every stage and the ultimate effectiveness vary from one case to another due to differences in treatment plans, illnesses and the patient’s internal capacities for relaying energy. But these indices of control and management are indeed concrete and useful tools in helping the patient undertake empirically supported, autonomous health management. In turn, they go a long way toward facilitating doctor-patient communication and trust.