It is quite common for individuals to hastily retort with phrases like "but you're not a doctor" when they are uncertain about someone's medical expertise. This is often used as a means to belittle and disregard your views, opinions, knowledge regarding biology and they assume that you lack the qualifications to engage in discussions about medical matters.
However, do we really need to be meteorologists to talk about the weather? It is an automatic assumption that medical doctors possess comprehensive knowledge about all aspects of health, but this couldn't be further from the truth. How can they be certain that you aren't a Doctor of chiropractic, a Doctor of Sciences, or a Doctor of Political Science?
It's also very common for those who say such above statements to possess relatives, friends in their social circles who work especially in the medical industry, animal industry, biological industry and these people often maintain an air of arrogance because they are confident they know better than those claiming we possess significant cellular imbalances that cause illness. In fact, it's very common to hear people dismiss websites such as here because they think they are experts in biology yet they still cannot explain how anyone develops sickness in the first place other than saying "it's genetic" and written in stone.
I've even seen people with Masters degrees in biology dismiss what and others say even with proof of tissue levels from other countries with healthier populations.
Did You Know? We Have Free Email News & Tips
Sign up to the above email list to receive more free updates.
The truth is many people are conditioned to dismiss anyone they consider not being a medical doctor thinking they are simply many things including "sick, mentally ill" or someone not smart enough to understand what a medical doctor is trained in as if they were coming out of medical schools like an assembly line.
When many people hear the word "holistic" they also automatically dismiss this very wide-ranging word as "quackery."
Traditional medicine (also called "conventional medicine" to what virtually all people describe as "Doctor") mostly only focuses solely on treating symptoms, offering temporary relief without addressing the overall well-being of an individual. In contrast, a holistic practitioner takes a comprehensive approach to promote long-term wellness, considering the interconnectedness of the mind, body, and spirit. By incorporating an individualized cellular nutritional assessment, they provide sustainable solutions that nurture the entire being.
"An arrogant person considers himself perfect. This is the chief harm of arrogance. It interferes with a person's main task in life - becoming a better person." -- Leo Tolstoy
A big cause of this is because these above-mentioned people say these things because they are conditioned in places calling themselves schools that train specialists to the point of them completely ignoring the systems view and how it plays out in biology.
Please donate to the "Pay It Forward" Campaign
This donation will help others obtain individualized help who can't afford it.
Does anyone ever ask the reality of "medical school" training & practice for Medical Doctors?
The reality is much less what the public opinion formed by mainly the media over the decades has painted for us. "Doctors" are very limited in their training, treatments, what they can do and say, and what most people think of their actual orientation.
Rene Descartes' theory of mind-body dualism has long been recognized as the bedrock of our modern medical system. Descartes made a distinct demarcation between the distinct realms of the mind and body: consciousness and physicality, respectively. From his standpoint, the body resides in the physical realm and remains entirely detached from the realm of the mind. This philosophical framework has been embraced by contemporary science, which upholds the notion that the body and mind are incapable of interacting or exerting any influence upon one another.
This is how "modern science" reduces nearly every field of study for many reasons but the largest is to create a more limited view of subjects into specialties for easier study and larger amounts of schools devoted to training specialists. The major downside is when we reduce subjects to their component parts we neglect to see the intersecting subjects that influence each other in a synergy and this is how the universe works.
Formal Education Industry Produces Specialists Armies & Great Limitations Of This
Education has become plagued by reductionism. In recent years, it has shifted from being seen as a holistic art form to a detached science. Both educators and administrators now have the tendency to dissect education into its individual components, addressing and handling each fragment separately. This approach aims to equip our children for the challenges they will face in the future.
Although the intention behind this approach was positive, only a handful of people acknowledge that the simplified approach to education has not yielded the expected benefits of the industrial model. Instead, it has added a significant amount of complexity to handle, ironically leading to the creation of even more complexity. Source
Some MD Doctors Will Recommend Other "Alternative Modalities" For More Help But Most Won't
A small percentage of well-meaning doctors will actually recommend you to visit other practitioners who are focused on more lengthy analysis of your body, lifestyle, diet, bio-chemistry and many other factors. However, there are still sizeable majorities of them who will not do this and provide you life-condemning information as quoted above in the image. The fact of the matter is your genetics rarely doom you to any dis-ease and in fact.
What modern medicine needs to do is propel towards cure on one hand and prevention on the other and adopting the research, practices, and double-blind studies carried out by the government of Saskatchewan beginning in the 1950s under the name of "orthomolecular medicine". Cure, however, is out of consideration, because it appears unachievable mainly because they have not adopted a practice of systems biology, and prevention is nowhere in the collective consciousness of biomedical researchers and opinion makers, We can suspect probably because it would ultimately make them redundant. And the cure and prevention lobby makes only weak noises, if at all, and does not have the clout to change mainstream opinion.
Descartes and the Renaissance: Viewing the world in sub-components including the human body
Ever since the time of Descartes and the Renaissance, science, including the field of medicine, has followed a unique path characterized by its analytical evaluation of the natural world. This distinctive approach can be referred to as the "divide and conquer" method, which is based on the belief that complex problems can be effectively solved by breaking them down into smaller, simpler units that are more manageable.
Reductionism, as this approach is known, has been the dominant paradigm in science for the past two centuries, as it involves reducing processes into their fundamental components. Undoubtedly, reductionism has played a crucial role in advancing modern medicine, enabling us to diagnose, treat, and prevent diseases more effectively. However, it is essential to acknowledge the limitations of reductionism and explore alternative explanations that can complement its approach.
Beresford (2010) argues that reductionism has three weaknesses:
- Firstly, it restricts knowledge to a select few individuals, thereby excluding the wider population and creating a sense of alienation.
- Secondly, reductionism can introduce systematic biases, resulting in oversimplification of intricate problems.
- Lastly, reductionism has the potential to misrepresent causal pathways, leading to a flawed understanding of cause and effect relationships.
The practice of clinical medicine is characterized by a systems-oriented approach, whereas the science of clinical medicine is fundamentally reductionist.
This can be observed through four prominent practices in medicine:
- the focus on a singular, dominant factor,
- the emphasis on homeostasis,
- the inexact modification of risk, and
- the use of additive treatments. In the context of medicine, there is a natural tendency to view the human body as a collection of individual components.
As medical professionals, our utmost priority is to pinpoint and separate the key factor responsible for the observed symptoms or behavior. This approach can be compared to that of a skilled mechanic who fixes a faulty car by identifying and repairing the defective part. Similarly, doctors typically address diseases by identifying and treating the specific abnormality that can be isolated within the body. Implicit in this practice is the deeply rooted belief that each disease has a distinct target for medical intervention. For example, in the case of an infection, the target is the pathogen causing it; for cancer, it is the tumor; and for gastrointestinal bleeding, it is the bleeding vessel or ulcer.
The reliance on referral to specialists that only focus on managing the symptoms with little to no communication with the primary general practitioner which also results in distributed liability.
Although the effectiveness of this method cannot be denied, it restricts the inclusion of contextual details. In the case of a young individual with a weakened immune system suffering from pneumococcal pneumonia, the prescribed antibiotic treatment is typically identical to that given to an elderly woman with the same infection.
Consequently, the emphasis is placed on the disease itself rather than the individual affected by it.
Our current analytical instruments are inadequately designed to tackle more intricate inquiries, resulting in a lack of comprehensive answers to questions like "how do an individual's sleeping patterns, dietary choices, living conditions, comorbidities, cellular nutritional health (extensive tissue readings) and stress collectively contribute to the development of heart disease?"
The principle of homeostasis has been a cornerstone in the field of medicine for many years. It was initially introduced by Claude Bernard in 1865 and later popularized by Walter B. Cannon. These trailblazers emphasized the incredible ability of the human body to maintain stability and consistency even when faced with external stressors. Since then, homeostasis has become an essential component of clinical practice. In medical terms, illness is defined as a disruption or failure of the body's homeostatic mechanisms. To restore health, physicians must intervene and correct any deviations from the normal range. This approach of corrective treatment applies to a wide array of medical conditions, such as hypothyroidism, hypokalemia, and diabetes. By addressing these imbalances and bringing physiological parameters back within the normal range, physicians strive to restore homeostasis and enhance overall well-being.
This understanding of homeostasis, however, is influenced by a reductionist perspective in two distinct ways
- Firstly, the focus on rectifying the imbalanced parameter (such as low potassium) undermines the significance of holistic operations within the system. It is possible that alternative, less obvious targets could yield greater effectiveness, or even that correcting the imbalanced parameter itself may have detrimental effects on the entire system. The existing evidence, which highlights the adverse consequences of calcium administration for hypocalcemia or blood pressure control for stroke-related hypertension, underscores the limitations of considering homeostasis as a universally applicable principle.
- Furthermore, the significance of dynamic stability is undermined by the exclusive focus on statistical normal ranges. Reductionism tends to overlook the dynamic interactions among various components, portraying the system as a mere assemblage of static elements. As a result, the emphasis is placed on static stability and normal ranges, neglecting the importance of dynamic stable states, including oscillatory or chaotic behavior that may appear random but is actually deterministic. Oscillatory behavior, such as circadian rhythms, serves as an example, while complex heart rate variability exemplifies chaotic behavior.
Failure to incorporate these dynamic states into the homeostasis model can result in treatments that are not only ineffective but also potentially harmful.
This is especially prevalent in the "conventional" medical model which is based on the Cartesian view that the mind is separate from the body. What is the result of this?
In addition to the paucity of testing according to the systems perspective mentioned above, psychiatrists rely mostly on highly subjective criteria in diagnosing and attempting to treat human patients such as: the clothes they are wearing, if they are groomed well, their cognitive abilities, but little to no investigations into what could be causing the symptoms that are separated from the body.
Systems Science That Medical Doctors Aren't Trained In
In the realm of systems biology, we draw inspiration from the Duck of Vaucanson to understand Parkinson's disease. While these "Parkinson ducks" may appear similar on the surface, they possess distinct self-regulating systems that shape their unique pathophysiological processes. Just as ducks belong to the same family but are influenced by the environment they inhabit, the phenotype of Parkinson's disease is influenced by the specific "pond" it resides in. These ponds represent a combination of genetic, molecular, and environmental factors that intertwine within the intricate networks of systems biology. However, we must acknowledge that these simplified representations of Parkinson's disease are just the tip of the iceberg, as there are numerous complex interactions at play. Source
This "inner pond" is how we should be viewing ourselves and others rather than merely solid objects with worn clothing. We should be paying attention to mainly the bio-chemical soup inside our bodies and if our cells are obtaining the proper amounts of substances on a frequent basis along with making sure it rids itself of what it doesn't.
Your genes play a significant role in determining your susceptibility to various diseases, as explained by Zimmerman. However, it is important to note that genes alone do not dictate whether or not you will develop a disease. Instead, it is often a combination of inherited genetic traits that increase your likelihood of developing a disease. Furthermore, even these genetic predispositions are not set in stone. In other words, they may not have any impact on your health unless they are activated by specific environmental factors or lifestyle choices. These activated genetic traits, known as "epigenetic changes," have a profound influence on how your DNA functions within your body. Epigenetic changes occur when lifestyle or environmental factors cause a specific gene to either activate or deactivate. For example, in the case of cancer, these changes may activate a gene that promotes the growth of abnormal cells. Conversely, they may deactivate a gene that would normally suppress their growth.
No Such Thing As "Balanced Diet": Very Generalized Advice
Many sources tell us things like "Eating the right food is crucial for maintaining good health" along with "balanced diet" which are both very generalized advice and if you possess cellular very common imbalances of vitamins, minerals, amino acids, toxins like heavy metals and many other factors you may improve these with "eating good food" but how do you know what's happening inside your body if you don't obtain an individualized analysis?
However, it's important to note that food also has an indirect influence on your health through factors like obesity and high blood pressure, which are risk factors for heart disease. Surprisingly, there are over 300 genetic variants that can increase your chances of developing high blood pressure. Nevertheless, even if you possess these high-risk genes, you can significantly reduce your risk of heart disease by one-third by adopting a "healthy diet" and incorporating regular exercise into your routine. "Healthy diet" is a very broad, generalized term and you can greatly increase your risk of developing illness even more by obtaining individualized assessments.
It's worth mentioning that in some cases, medication may be necessary to lower blood pressure, so consulting with your doctor is advisable -- but you have to ask yourself and your MD: how did you reach this point of needing medication?
To ensure optimal heart health, experts highly recommend following a plant-based diet. However, this doesn't necessarily mean you have to become a vegan or vegetarian. The main generalized objective is to replace processed foods with whole foods, such as fruits and vegetables. Additionally, it's essential to include whole grains, lean protein sources like nuts and seafood, and carefully check food packaging for added salt and sugar. There are problems with this kind of generalized advice as well: grains are a source of many problems in our society because they aren't fresh, are usually processed, and are often hybridized and modified. Because of these modifications and processing we increase our risk of developing illness.
What Exactly Are "Cellular Imbalances" You Speak Of?
The term "cellular imbalance" is frequently used by many across the media spectrum but also in another way by medical doctors as " chemical imbalance." The problem is that the latter term is used as justification by medical doctors as a sweeping generalized term without much of any science behind it other than symptom management using drugs that inevitably wear-off when the body builds a resistance to them.
Here is an example blood test that has many problems. The biggest is that medical doctors use primarily "snap shot in time" blood tests and since blood is mainly only a transport medium it doesn't carry much of what is contained within the body. Do they test all the amino acids, vitamins, minerals, organ function and many others in a short 10 minute acute-based office or emergency room visits?
As you can see in the red box it shows "minimum wage of nutrition" and in fact this is even less than minimum wage of cellular nutrition. Why is that? If you look at the last red box it shows what the minimum that is needed before it becomes deficient, while if we compared this "normal" to places like Japan with much higher standards this would be -- at least in this case -- an indicator what would be causing the symptoms the patient is experiencing. If they were raised in this case and supplemented his symptoms would simply disappear and they did once they were given proper advice from a systems practitioner.
Do they test the following whatsoever among others using hair mineral analysis?
References:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/473f/f7df97536ec45fc7070a89b7db113eecd8ad.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707562/
https://allthingsareyours.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/epigenetics-and-generational-curses/
