EXCELLENT article by Dr. Ali
(Oxygen Therapies Forum)
All Forums - Support - Debate - Health
Oxygen Therapies Forum: Ozone O3, H2O2, HBOT, Homozon,... (
Description | Oxygen Therapies Books )

EXCELLENT article by Dr. Ali by Tim 29 d R&N Printer-Friendly
Version @ Email this message to a friend

Subject: EXCELLENT article by Dr. Ali
From: Tim < no email > | Show All messages posted by Tim
|
Date: 22:01 Apr 20 2003 (29 d) R&N Recommended Message!


AN UNDERSTANDING OF ENERGETIC-MOLECULAR MEDICINE:
Nutritional Medicine, Environmental Medicine, Medicine of Self-
Regulation, and Medicine of Fitness

by Majid Ali, M.D.

EM medicine is founded on events that occur in molecules (and cells
and tissues) before they are injured and changed, and not on the
study of how dead and decaying cells and tissues look under the
microscope after they have been damaged by a disease.
EM medicine has four faces: nutritional medicine, environmental
medicine, medicine of self-regulation, and medicine of fitness.
Rudolph Vichow, the father of modern pathology, published Cellular
Pathology in 1858 and liberated us from the restrictive tenets of
gross pathology of medieval and ancient times. Cellular pathology, of
course, gives us windows to injured tissues and cells after the fact.
Now, knowledge of energetic-molecular dynamics of health and disease
allows us to move beyond where Virchow could take us with his
microscope.
While acute illness is likely to remain a preserve of safe surgery
and potent drugs, chronic illness is rapidly becoming a province of
EM medicine. Drug medicine may well fall to nutritional and
environmental medicines, and "limbic" fitness may soon prevail over
current technology-oriented regimens. In fact, self-regulation may
soon move from the field of mysticism to the domain of science.
Indeed, we are moving toward the moment when the physician becomes a
tutor and the patient a pupil.
All diseases are caused by accelerated oxidant stress. This may
strike many as improbable, perhaps even as a nonsensical
simplification of complex issues, but I have sound reasons for
proposing this unifying theory of disease causation. Spontaneity of
Oxidation is the Root Cause of All Diseases. Increased oxidant stress
on human biology is caused by factors in our internal and external
environments. Chronic disease results from impairment in antioxidant
defenses related to poor nutrition or excessive oxidant stress
brought about by allergy, chemical sensitivity, environmental toxins,
lifestyle stress and poor physical fitness. susceptibility to
recurring viral, bacterial and fungal infections, and parasitic
infestation of the bowel develops when an individual's antioxidant
and, at later stages, immune defenses are damaged by one or more of
the above elements. Drugs are not an acceptable answer to these
problems. antibiotics, while essential for life-threatening
infections, seriously damage bowel ecosystems and impair human
defenses in many different ways.
How is health defined in drug medicine? It isn't. The subject of
what health is and what it may not be is scrupulously avoided in our
medical schools, hospitals and physician offices. We glibly dismiss
any reference t it by mumbling something unintelligible about
physical, mental and emotional aspects.
But what are the physical attributes of health? How do we define
mental health? What is emotional wholesomeness? I have attended tens
of thousands of medical lectures since I entered King Edward Medical
College, Lahore, Pakistan in 1958. I do not recall ever hearing
anyone answer these questions with any sincerity of purpose. Why? I
myself never once reflected on this question in the over 25 years
that I worked as a disease doctor of drug medicine. I faced this
problem only when my interest shifted from disease to health. I
rendered my definition of what health is and what it isn't in the
companion volume The Butterfly and Life Span Nutrition. Here, I
briefly define health again.

Health is being spiritual without any need to analyze what
spirituality might be.
Health is waking up in the morning with a deep sense of gratitude.
Gratitude not for any accomplishment of the day before or for
accumulations of yesteryears, but for simply being. An ENT surgeon
from Greece recently attended my lecture at the meeting of the
American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy and expressed
frustration, "But this is utterly new to my Greek thought." If the
concept of gratitude for simply being is foreign to us, we simply
need to learn about it.
Health is waking up with a sense of energy, going through a day's
work with that sense of energy and returning to bed at night with it.
Health is as much energy before meals as it is after it.
Health is the ability to treasure personal time in silence with
family or friends or alone.
Health is two or three effortless, odorless bowel movements a day
without mucus and cramps.
Health is living, dynamic and vigorous bowel, blood and cellular
ecosystems.
Health is an intact and functioning gateway of life, cell membranes
that mark the boundaries of life within the cell and that which
exists outside it in the blood. Cell membrane separates internal
order of a cell from external disorder. It is a living, breathing,
spongy and porous sheet that regulates the two-way energetic-
molecular traffic between cells and the soup of life that bathes them.
The last two elements of my definition of health may seem tedious
to some readers. Here, I wish to make a crucial point:

The essence of energetic-molecular medicine is to seek a genuine
understanding of the dynamics of cell membrane, and to reverse
chronic disease and promote health with natural, non-drug therapies
that revive injured bowel, blood and cellular ecosystems.

It is not uncommon for me to see drug doctors insult holistic
physicians because they use "unscientific" methods. The truth is that
it is a more scientific to base our restorative therapies for chronic
disease on a genuine understanding of bowel, blood and cellular
ecosystems than mere symptom suppression with drugs that blockade
normal physiologic processes. Drug therapies for chronic disease as
necessary as they might be for symptom suppression do not constitute
restorative approaches.

WHAT HEALTH IS NOT

And now what health is not. Health is not mere absence of disease.
Health has nothing to do with the frivolous notions of RDA and
balanced diets of our nutrition experts. Health is not the euphoria
of eating nor is it the denial of dieting. health is not
preoccupation with recycling past miseries nor is it pre-cycling
feared, future misery. Health is not living with regrets nor is it
obsession with control in life.
I return to the question that I raised before submitting my
definition of health: Why do disease doctors of drug medicine shun
the subject of health? The answer is really quite simple: None of the
issues of health I define above can be addressed with drugs.

ONE MISSION

A physician has but one mission:
to alleviate suffering by reversing disease and promoting health.

It is a sad comment on contemporary medicine in the U.S. that is
neither committed to reversing disease nor to promoting health.
Disease can be reversed only by addressing the initial energetic-
molecular events that separate a state of health from a state of
absence of health, the in between state of absence of health. Drugs
can neither reverse disease nor promote health not withstanding their
essential role in saving lives in acute, life-threatening conditions
and in symptom suppression in chronic disease.
The twin goals of reversing disease and promoting health require
nutritional, environmental, self-regulatory and fitness therapies.
Who is a better judge of whether a therapy works or not, a physician
or a patient? Since antiquity, physicians have vigorously excluded
the patient from judging whether the therapy used was effective or
not. Even to date, the dogma of disease doctors of drug medicine
flatly denies that the patient's subjective sense about the clinical
efficacy, or lack of it, has any true role in research in drug
therapies. In higher orbits of power where drug medicine sets its
policies and procedures, patient's subjective evaluations are
dismissed as soft data. the few physicians who do bring this subject
up are regarded condescendingly not outright ridiculed.
In acute illness, indeed, the experienced patient is in a better
position to be judge. The patient's judgment is often clouded by
intense suffering, impaired intellectual function, and fear of death.
But does that hold for chronic illness? The best of physicians can
only bring to his patient only his knowledge and experience. One
thing he can never do is become a patient. No amount of empathy,
training, or encounters with suffering of other patients can allow
the physician to feel the pain of his patient. No sensory perceptions
no matter how sharply honed can allow a physician to know the
suffering of his patient. We still have not invented any "pain-o-
meter" that can precisely measure the degree of pain. How does an
orthopedic surgeon quantify a patient's pain? He can graph out the
muscle spasm with an electromyography equipment. But can he measure
the magnitude of suffering inflicted by a persistent spasm of the
neck muscles? How can a physician truly judge the level of fatigue of
his patient as he leaves his bed? Or his sense of dismay as therapies
fail, and promises do not hold up?
On a more mundane level, how can a physician judge better than the
patient what dose of an herb gives him better sleep? Or what
frequency of allergy injections give him the best relief? Or how
often he needs extra support of oral or injectable nutrients to
prevent the relapse of chronic fatigue?
In chronic illness, the patient is in a far better position to
assess the outcome of a given therapy than the physician. Smart
doctors sharp with their statistics may have trouble with this
viewpoint; wise physicians will not.
As the physician and the patient become more enlightened, the
clinical outcome evaluated by the patient will displace the frivolous
models of double-blin, cross-over drug research that infatuate
disease doctors at present.

TWO CORE PROBLEMS OF MEDICINE

There are two core problems of medicine today:

First, we try to solve 21st-century environmental and nutritional
problems with 19th-century ideas of diseases and drugs.

Second, we have raised generations of physicians who know much about
disease but little, if anything, about health. Indeed, the
contemporary medical journals are singularly silent on issues of what
health is, and how it can be fostered. The prevailing dogma of drug
medicine is utterly committed to keeping the sick incarcerated in the
sickness mold.

The issue is not whether or not non-drug therapies work for chronic
ecologic, immune and degenerative disorders. They work. Thousands of
physicians have known that for decades. The challenge today is not to
disprove their efficacy; rather, it is to improve the success rate of
such natural therapies with continued innovations, and to document
their efficacy with careful empirical observations.
Instead, the prevailing dogma of drug medicine is committed to
eliminating all non-drug therapies in the United States. Postgraduate
continuing education of American physicians is solidly controlled by
drug companies. During the last 25 years of my work at Holy Name
Hospital in Teaneck, New Jersey, I have attended more than a thousand
formal lectures, mostly by visiting outside speakers (paid for by
drug companies). Except for times when I was asked to substitute for
a speaker who could not speak, and spoke about matters of health,
nutrition and environment, I do not recall a single speaker who
discussed non-drug therapies. (Why would any drug company spend its
money teaching physicians how not to use drugs?)
My friend, Choua, calls the prevailing dogma of drug medicine N2D2
medicine, a medicine in which all concerns, all efforts and all
thinking are directed to naming a disease and then searching for the
right name of a drug. Choua uses the following equation to make this
point:

N2D2 Medicine =Name of Disease X Name of Drug

The central problem with N2D2 medicine is obvious: Mere names of
diseases do not give us any insights into the energetic-molecular
events that cause the symptoms and create the physical signs by which
we diagnose them. In fact, these disease names hide much from us. The
concept of the drug of choice indoctrinates us to seek chemical
solutions for symptom suppression. The sick pay, an exorbitant price
for our infatuation with N2D2 medicine, that essentially down plays
the importance of nutrition, environment, stress and fitness. Drug
medicine forever keeps the patient focused on disease rather than
directing him to health.

THE TYRANNY OF N2D2 MEDICINE

And that is not the only problem. Generation upon generation of
physicians believe that the care of the sick without drugs or
scalpels is quackery. They are prejudiced against nutritional and
environmental therapies of which, by their admission, they know
little or nothing about. The very small minority of physicians who
recognize this dilemma and seek non-drug therapies are mercilessly
persecuted by the drug doctors who sit on hospital medical and state
licensing boards.

THREE SCIENCES

Science is the search for truth. Science is observation of physical
phenomenon. Science is self-correcting.

At an elementary level, one can look at science in three ways:

Science of observation

Science of empiricism

Science of controlled and reproducible experiments

SCIENCE OF SIMPLE OBSERVATION

The first science of simple observation is the purest of all
sciences. It is the science of simple observation. It has no ulterior
motive or hidden agenda except to state what has been observed. Each
month my issues of Nature and Science carry articles written by
physiologists, botanists, zoologists, biologists and paleontologists
who describing their observations about the oxidative stress on
various life forms, alive or long deceased. Sometimes their
observations extend the known knowledge and at other times, they
challenge percepts of old knowledge. When such observations do not
fit into the established body of scientific knowledge, they are not
rejected simply because any high priests of establishment declare
them invalid. The crucial point is this: Their observations stand on
their own merits.

SCIENCE OF EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION

The second science of empiricism requires that we accept that which
works. Apples fell down from trees long before Newton ever conceived
his ideas of gravitational pull. People empirically knew that apples
fall down and not fly up when they are ripe. Newton questioned why
apples fall down and not move sideways or fly up, and that simple
question led him to propound his laws of gravity.
Folks in Pakistan have known for centuries that curries do not spoil
so readily if they are prepared with tumeric. They accepted this as a
valid empirical observation. Recent studies show that curcumin, the
major yellow pigment in turmeric, is a powerful antioxidant and anti-
inflammatory agent. So now we know how tumeric keeps curry dishes
fresh for many hours.
The East India Company sent four ships to India in its first
expedition in 1600. General Mames Lancaster provided lemon juice in
his ship that remained free of scurvy whereas the other three ships
were badly affected by this disorder. This empirical observation was
made long before vitamin C was discovered.
The ancients knew some remedies worked. Practical men demonstrated
astute powers of empirical observations long before the modern
concepts of science were articulated. They recorded the effects of
many effective remedies after careful, repeated empirical
observations. The Chinese and Indian Ayurvedic herbal medicines
evolved over centuries. To this day, many of their herbal therapies
are used worldwide for billions of people. I use many of them every
working day in my office and validate their science of empiricism.

SCIENCE OF CONTROLLED AND REPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENTS

Great Promise lies in what I call energetic-molecular (EM) medicine.
EM medicine is based on a true understanding of the energetic-
molecular events that separate a state of health from a state of
disease.
The explosive growth in physical sciences that we have witnessed
during the last 150 years has occurred largely due to controlled and
reproducible experiments. An understanding of the laws of physics led
to an understanding of energy and of properties of matter. Advances
in analytical methods led to determination of chemical composition of
natural substances, and that paved the way for synthetic chemistry.
Knowledge of biology and chemistry expanded into enzymes and genes.
The field of molecular biology, as its infancy only a couple of
decades ago mushroomed into an al encompassing discipline.
The story on the side of science in medicine, however, is quite
different. Science is vastly misunderstood in medicine.

TRAGEDY OF SCIENCE IN MEDICINE

Medicine is artful application of the knowledge of biology to he
care of the sick.
Human biology, I wrote in intravenous Nutrient Protocols in
Molecular Medicine, is an ever changing kaleidoscope of molecular
mosaics. Health and disease, at molecular an electron transfer
levels, can be defined as the states created by the impact upon an
individual's genetic make-up of molecules in his internal and
external environments. Health, in this light, can be seen as
molecular dynamics that preserve the structural and functional
integrity of cells, tissues and organs. Disease, by contrast, can be
defined as molecular events that cause cellular tissue and injury.
In biology, I wrote in The Butterfly and Life Span Nutrition, if we
change something in one way, we change everything in some way.
Different biologic burdens affect different people differently.
Diseases change the function and structure of different tissues
differently. Therapies affect different people differently. This must
be accepted as the core philosophy of medicine.
The tragedy of drug medicine in the U.S. is this: Only that
knowledge of biology that serves the drug industry finds its way into
our physician offices, clinics and hospitals. there is little, if
any, support for that knowledge of biology that can help us preserve
health without drugs. In medical schools, there is considerable
emphasis on basic sciences, but, as we all know, young doctors
abandon all interest in basic sciences as soon as they have access to
prescription pads.
Science of medicine vehemently rejects the first two sciences: the
science of observation and the science of empiricism. We physicians
mindlessly prescribe drugs that we know are toxic and, in many cases,
simply do not work. We vigorously call quackery all use of natural
therapies that we know nothing about, and stubbornly refuse to allow
their use even though they have proven to be effective and safe by
centuries of observation and empirical validation.
The science of medicine defines science in medicine only as the
knowledge of drugs that can be proven by its blessed double-blind,
cross-over model of drug research. It clings to this limited, and
entirely unsatisfactory, view of science even as it sees every day
the havoc wreaked by its drugs, after they were proven to be safe and
effective by its double-blin, cross-over drug studies. I return to
this tragedy of science in drug medicine in the chapter Science Has
Not Failed Medicine, Medicine Has Failed Science.

FOUR PREDICTIONS

I am an optimist. I believe all this will change. Four predictions,
it seems to me, can be safely made about the future of medicine for
the enlightened:

First,

ecologic, immune, degenerative and stress-related disorders will be
the dominant chronic disorders of the 21st century.

Second,

these disorders will force the disease doctors of drug medicine to
learn and use non-drug therapies for chronic immune and degenerative
disorders. Patients as well as physicians will clearly see that
problems caused by chemicals cannot be solved with yet more chemicals
(drugs).

Third,

the emerging energetic-molecular medicine will become
a "participatory" medicine, a medicine in which the patient will
actively guide the physician in energetic molecular restorative work
rather than simply accepting symptom-suppressing drugs.

Fourth,

self-regulation, and the hope and spirituality that always spring
from it, will become an essential part of the mainstream management
philosophy for all chronic disorders.

I do not believe that everyone in medicine will readily see or agree
with my reasons for making these predictions. Some people will always
be content with sheer symptom suppression in disease. There will
always be doctors willing to provide them with the necessary
prescriptions.
These four predictions do not arise from some far-fetched notions of
utopia. Rather, these conclusions seem inescapable to me as I reflect
on the growing pandemic of hyperactivity and attention deficit
disorders in children; chronic, disabling fatigue among previously
active young adults; hormonal dysfunctions among young women; mood,
memory and mentation disorders caused by multiple drug therapies
among the elderly; and an ever widening spectrum of eco-disorders
among people of all ages. No miracles of synthetic chemistry can
reverse these problems. A growing number of people are becoming
enlightened about these core health issues.

Five Medicines

Medicine began as a sideline of the men of spirits of antiquity. It
slowly changed into medicine of gross organs, a profession in which
therapies were used to approach problems of health as seen with
examination of decaying and dead tissues. In the 18th century, the
invention of the microscope ushered in the third medicine of
histopathology, the microscope now defined diseases. The microscope
also evaluated the efficacy of therapies used to treat those diseases.
Advances in synthetic chemistry brought forth the fourth medicine of
chemistry, a medicine of enzymes, receptors, mediators, cell membrane
channels and genes. The medicine of chemistry saves many lives. It is
clearly at its best when it cares for those near death, the tail-end
medicine as I call it. It also endlessly prolongs the process of
dying for many. This fourth medicine fares poorly when it comes to
preserving health and preventing disease, the front-end medicine in
my order of things.
We now look at the emerging possibility of the fifth energetic-
molecular (EM) medicine, a medicine based on physics of health rather
than on chemistry of disease. Medicine based on physics of health is
the true preventive medicine, focusing on the initial energetic
molecular events that separate a state of health from a state of
absence of health. This book is about this fifth medicine.

SIX ASSUMPTIONS

The concept of RDA is not a valid concept. Indeed, I have often
wondered how could this frivolous idea have lasted for so long. It
makes six dangerous assumptions:

First,

it assumes that nutrients are of clinical value only for prevention
of a few deficiency diseases. This assumption is largely based on
statistics obtained with animal experiments. How can the prevention
of deficiency states in rats be equated with optimal metabolic
requirements for health preservation for humans?

Second,

it assumes that statistics obtained with animal experiments conducted
for brief periods of a few months or a few years can be valid for
human beings for the whole life span. How can rats fed this or that
nutrient for weeks or months from the basis for recommendations for
humans for decades?

Third,

it assumes that statistics obtained with studies employing processed
and unnatural food items can yield valid guidelines for good health.
The natural order of things requires us to eat what grows where we
live, and what land provides at that time. How can rats fed highly
unnatural and purified foods be accepted as suitable models for
humans?

Fourth,

it assumes that statistics obtained with studies conducted under
highly controlled environment can produce data that are relevant to
people living under highly polluted and toxic conditions. How can
rats in sanitized laboratory environment be deemed appropriate
surrogates for humans living in totally different ecosystems?

Fifth,

it assumes that human tissues are immune to the increasing oxidative
stresses that wreak havoc on our land and marine ecosystems. Every
month medical journals publish papers linking degenerative diseases
with functional micronutrient deficiencies, and every month they
report protective effects of such nutrients. Yet, the practitioners
of drug medicine ignore all that evidence and stubbornly cling to
their drug model of disease.

Sixth,

it assumes that statistics about nutrient deficiency states can be
blindly applied to issues of health and human life span. How can rat
statistics be relevant to humans?

This last assumption of RDA that statistics alone can separate truth
from falsehood in medicine clearly is the most pernicious. Medicine
is artful application of knowledge of biology to he care of the sick.
We have a limited understanding of he healing response in man. There
are simply too many variables in the healing phenomena, and medical
statistics are of very little relevance to an individual patient.
The drug medicine compounds the error when it insists on carrying
the silly assumptions of RDA into long-term use of drugs for chronic
disease. Here, drug use statistics play havoc with the reality.
Ironically, drug medicine goes to all lengths to mask, or outright
deny, statistics about drug toxicity as it exaggerates the statistics
about its long term efficacy.
Since I entered medical school in 1958, I have heard great
pronouncements about the miracles of synthetic drugs. As a medical
student and later as a young physicians, I received them with a
certain pride. After all, those were the achievements of my
profession. We had good reasons to celebrate our successes in
treating acute illnesses. But the caring for the chronically sick is
an altogether different matter. Years have sobered me. I include some
excerpts for comic relief.

CURING DISEASE WITH SNIPPETS OF DNA

Someday, says Anderson, physicians will simply treat patients by
injecting snippets of DNA and send them home cured.

Time Magazine, January 17, 1994, page 48

Let's see what the record shows.
We do not have a single drug that reverses degenerative disease.
Drugs, as I write earlier, are agents of blockade of natural
physiologic processes. They are not substances that health is made up
of. (EDTA is one of the few exceptions that can reverse coronary
artery disease, but drug medicine is vehemently opposed to its use).
Nutrients facilitate physiologic processes, but their use in clinical
medicine, as we all know sadly, is considered as quackery.
There have been abounding advances in surgery during my life time.
However, surgical removal of diseased organs, as life-saving as it
may be, clearly does not reverse any degenerative disorder. Surgical
intervention by itself never promotes the essential regenerative
processes that maintain health. There have been great advances in
synthetic chemistry. Antibiotics are designer killer molecules that,
as life-saving as they may be at times, do not reverse any
degenerative diseases. Antiinflammatory agents, as valuable as they
may be for symptom suppression, can never facilitate the healing
response. How can they? Inflammation is the essential phenomenon that
sets the state for repair response. Thus, the drugs that suppresses
inflammation cannot promote the healing response. Steroids suppress
the immune and healing responses.

HOPE IN THE WAR AGAINST CANCER

It begins as a single cell and grows into a merciless disease that
claims more than half a million Americans a year. But scientists are
steadily unlocking its mysteries, and the fight against it may now
have reached a turning point. New discoveries promise better
therapies and hope in the war against cancer.
Time Magazine, April 25, 1994

Time sees much hope in the grand proclamations of the cancer
industry in the United States. I don't. Such assumptions of drug
medicine forever amuse me. Let's see if the New England Journal of
Medicine shares the hopes of Time magazine.

WE ARE LOSING WAR AGAINST CANCER

We assessed the overall progress against cancer during the years 1950
to 1982. In the United States, these years were associated with
increases in the number of deaths from cancer, in the crude cancer-
related mortality rate, in the age adjusted mortality rate, and in
both the crude and the age-adjusted incidence rates...we are losing
the war against cancer...A shift in research emphasis, from research
on treatment to research on prevention, seems necessary if
substantial progress against cancer is to be forthcoming.

New England Journal of Medicine 314:1226; 1986

The Journal is right on target. The war on cancer will not be won if
we commit all our resources to destroying our antioxidant and immune
defenses with more and more toxic chemotherapy drugs.
Cancer is reversible, at least in its early stages. But if we were
to seriously pursue this, we will face a serious problem: the most
powerful of all RDA assumptions, the notion of irreversibility. Our
entire cancer industry is built on the assumption that cancer is
irreversible. Much too much money is riding on this notion for it to
be allowed to go down.

ATTRACTIVENESS OF GLOOM

Because life expectancy is constantly going up, and we may well cure
cancer and heart disease in the near future, doesn't all else matter
little if we are increasingly healthy?
Science 255:265; 1992

Science is out to dispel gloom. It entitled the editorial from which
the above excerpt is drawn Attractiveness of Gloom. It doesn't much
reason for gloom on the present scene. It has infinite faith in its
capacity for solving all mankind's problems by miracles of synthetic
chemistry.

CURING HEART DISEASE! WOW!

How does science propose to cure heart disease? With coronary bypass
surgery? With angioplasty? With drugs? On what basis does Science
make its pronouncement? Does Science have any data that supports its
conclusions? If so, why does it hide it from us?
The Science editorial, of course, addresses the issue in a humorous
dialogue with one Mr. Know-it-all. Science has not failed medicine, I
write earlier. Medicine has failed science. The problem of heart
disease, indeed, can be addressed effectively.
Heart disease is a reversible. It is a correctable oxidative-
metabolic disorder, and not a mere plumbing problem as our cardiac
surgeons and "angioplasterers" insist. Science has given us molecules
such as EDTA, vitamin C, taurine, glutathione, N-acetyl cysteine that
can reverse coronary artery disease. But if we were to pursue this
matter seriously, we will face a serious problem: the RDA
assumptions, the notion of irreversibility.

DRUGS FOR MORAL JUDGMENT

Drugs to improve moral conduct! And why not? We use drugs to solve
all other problems. Why not solve the problem of immorality in
society with drugs? Why single out morality as a domain beyond drugs?
Why not enforce morality on the recalcitrant with "morality-
restoring" drugs? A preposterous idea? Not really. At least Time
magazine doesn't think there is anything wrong with it. Consider the
following:

If moral judgment can be broken, surely the next step is to fix
it. 'If the abnormality is in a discrete part of the brain that uses
a specific neurotransmitter, we can develop a drug treatment,'
suggests Dr. Snyder.
Time Magazine, July 11, 1994

Long live synthetic chemistry!

Long live our drug!

SEVEN INSIGHTS

During the last several years of my research and clinical work, one
or more events gave me some essential insights into the health-
disease dynamics for me. Seven such insights have dominated my
thinking and clinical management of my patients. Each of these
insight challenges a prevailing viewpoint on the pathologic basis of
disease and the best ways of managing the clinical disorders they
caused. These insights have also influenced my thinking in areas that
at first glance appear unrelated to the disease in question. I now
base all my EM medicine therapies on these seven issues, especially
with regard to immune, metabolic and degenerative disorders. A
discussion of each of the seven insights listed below follows.

1. Absence of disease is not always presence of health.

2. Spontaneity of oxidation in nature is the essential nature of the
aging process in man and is the root cause of all diseases.

3. Healing is a natural state of energy in tissue.

4. Genes legislate life; the environment interprets the laws set
forth by genes.

5. The bowel and the blood are open ecosystems.

6. Mind-over-body healing does not work; healing is not an
intellectual function. Energy-over-mind healing works.

7. For chronic diseases, EM medicine will eventually displace the
prevailing drug medicine as the proper approach to caring for the
sick.

These seven insights were gifts to me from people who asked me to
care for them in times of illness. Some evolved slowly after spending
long hours listening to my patients describe their suffering and
peering at injured tissues through my microscope in search of some
answers. Still others hit me like lightening. I have vigorously
tested each of them in various clinical settings. All my ways of
caring for the sick are based on them. These illuminations have given
rise to the different EM medicine that I describe in this and
companion volumes.

Many of the precepts of EM medicine have been considered and tested
by some of my colleagues in nutritional and environmental medicines.
I hope the clinical therapies that arise from these insights, and the
scientific principles on which they rest, will be considered by
others, and validated, modified or refuted, in the best tradition of
science.




Health ¤ Illness ¤ Diet ¤ Foods ¤ Cleansing