PHYSIOLOGY & HOMEOSTASIS
| || || |
Why do I bring this up? Simple. Because it goes to the very heart of the different philosophies of healing. As I've already shown you, the medical community believes they are changing physiology through the use of drugs, even though I've also shown you very clearly they are not. The fact is, there is a gap between these two opposing philosophies that is almost as large as THE CHASM between medical research and medical practice. While not all scientists are atheists, and not all non-scientists are religious (by "religious" I mean anyone who believes in a higher power, whatever they believe that power to be) there is a foundational principle here. It boils down to the age-old DEBATE BETWEEN VITALISTS AND MECHANISTS.
You can read the arguments by clicking the link, but realize that these two groups treat their sick very differently. For instance, vitalists realize that while there is certainly a time and a place for Western medicine, they also understand the symbiotic relationship between health and disease. For a better idea of what I mean by this odd statement, HERE is a great example. But one of my favorite examples of how a vitalist would treat different than a mechanist has to do with Diabetes.
Thanks in part to the ridiculously addictive nature of processed carbs and sugar (HERE), not only is diabetes running rampant in America, so is pre-diabetes (HERE and HERE). What is America's medial machine (a machine that could now best be described as "corporate") doing about this? Instead of educating patients about diet and lifestyle (HERE), they are trying to induce homeostasis via prescribing a group of drugs that has been proven time and time again to be largely ineffective at doing anything other than lowering blood sugar (they do not significantly diminish morbidity or mortality --- HERE and HERE). Yet another example of the medical community getting to PICK AND CHOOSE the "EVIDENCE" they like, while discarding what they don't.
If you are interested in seeing the bigger picture as far as restoring homeostasis and returning to health are concerned, HERE it is.
CANCER, GENETIC MUTATIONS, AND....
"At best, the mechanism of gene duplication shows how a hiker can get to the foot of a hiking trail, but never explains how the hiker finds the peak of the mountain, while doing a random, blindfolded walk. We don't need to know that genes can make copies of themselves; we need to know how the duplicate gene evolves, step-by-step, into an entirely new gene." Dr. Stephen Meyer from "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," Proceedings for the Biological Society of Washington
"What's particularly scary about cancer is that researchers are still in the dark as to what causes cancer, how it triggers, and in many cases how to fight it. In spite of throwing billions upon billions of dollars at cancer research, we've only managed to marginally improve overall survival for some cancer types, including lung cancer and pancreatic cancer, over the past four decades. Don't get me wrong, researchers do have a good idea as to what can increase a person's risk of getting cancer -- smoking or long-term sun exposure, for example -- but differentiating why some smokers live to be healthy well into their 90's while a person who eats right and exercises regularly gets cancer in their 40's has often stumped researchers and consumers alike." From Sean Williams' January 10 article, In Case You Missed it, This New Cancer Study is Terrifying
"The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause. A force assumed to cause events that cannot be foreseen or controlled. An accidental or unpredictable event. A risk or hazard; a gamble." Taken from Farlex's free online dictionary for the definition of the word 'Chance'.
After Gregor Mendel's experiments with peas in the 1860's (shortly after Darwin published his famous book), many scientists believed they had found the Holy Grail as far as determining the driving force for evolution was concerned ---- random changes in genetic material which we today call "Genetic Mutations". However, genetic mutations provide us with an interesting dichotomy. Although they are supposedly bringing us closer to the "perfection" Darwin described in Origins, things haven't quite worked out as nicely as they do in the pages of a Marvel comic book (think X-Men, Spiderman, The Hulk, the Fantastic Four, etc, etc, etc here). Plainly stated, the vast majority of genetic mutations are bad. In the real world, genetic mutations lead mostly to things like birth defects and a wide array of diseases, one of which we will discuss shortly.
Don't get me wrong. There are some examples of genetic mutations that are beneficial. The most common one is Sickle Cell Anemia and Malaria --- people who carry the Sickle Cell trait tend not to get Malaria. Some individuals and institutions will go out of their way to tell you how good genetic mutations are (Stanford's Mutations and Disease article, for instance, says, "Few mutations are bad for you. In fact, some mutations can be beneficial. Over time." I would argue that this statement is mostly false. After looking at lots and lots of research on the top over the past 15 or 20 years, I have yet to be convinced that there are more "good" genetic mutations occurring than "bad" ones (see Meyer's quote from the top of the page). Which leads me to the topic of Cancer.
Have you heard about the new study from Johns Hopkins' Department of Oncology / Center for Cancer Genetics and Therapeutics? The authors claim (using EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE of course) that the vast majority of CANCERS in America are nothing more than, "bad luck". Here are a couple of sentences from the abstract of a study published in this month's issue of Science (Variation in Cancer Risk Among Tissues can be Explained by the Number of Stem Cell Divisions).
"These results suggest that only a third of the variation in cancer risk among tissues is attributable to environmental factors or inherited predispositions. The majority is due to “bad luck,” that is, random mutations arising during DNA replication in normal, noncancerous stem cells."
I see a real dilemma with this approach to Cancer. If it is true that it is basically a "random" event, it would mean that our CRAPPY DIETS of PROCESSED FOODS (try pronouncing the chemical names on a food label sometime) / SUGAR, RADIATION EXPOSURE, SMOKING, exposure to TOXIC CHEMICALS, HEAVY METAL TOXICITY, OVER-CONSUMPTION OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS (and HERE), DESTRUCTION OF THE MICROBIOME, lack of EXERCISE, OBESITY, etc, etc, etc, don't really mean much as far as our health is concerned. In other words, if Cancer is mostly due to plain dumb luck (a purely random event), it really means that there is little hope --- especially with what we are learning about EPIGENETICS.
According to the American Cancer Society (Cancer Facts & Figures 2014), 2014 saw, "an estimated 1,665,540 new cancer cases diagnosed and 585,720 cancer deaths in the US. Cancer remains the second most common cause of death in the US, accounting for nearly 1 of every 4 deaths." Cancer rates aren't going down folks; they're exploding. Yes, it's true --- there are more people surviving Cancer today, but there are also more people coming down with the disease than any time in our nation's history --- both for the first time as well as relapses. This despite our national affluence, our scientific breakthroughs, and advanced level of health care.
Rather than leaving your health to 'blind luck', why not remove as much of the element of 'chance' from your life by doing the things that could potentially and dramatically improve your health? HERE is where I would start looking.
TURNABOUT IS FAIR PLAY
THE GOD DELUSION
THE SCIENCE DELUSION
Science is being constricted by assumptions that have, over the years, hardened into dogmas. Such dogmas are not only limiting, but dangerous for the future of humanity. According to these principles, all of reality is material or physical; the world is a machine, made up of inanimate matter; nature is purposeless; consciousness is nothing but the physical activity of the brain; free will is an illusion; God exists only as an idea in human minds, imprisoned within our skulls. The jacket of Dr. Sheldrake's Science Delusion.
Since the death of Christopher Hitchens, the unspoken leader of "The Four Horsemen," Dr. RICHARD DAWKINS (evolutionary biologist, Oxford), is arguably the world's most outspoken and eloquent atheist apologist. Using the mantle of "science" as the foundation of the pulpit for his anti-creation / anti-design books, lectures, and debates, Dawkins is in many ways, the polar opposite of Sheldrake. His most popular book (a runaway bestseller with over 2 million copies in print) was called "The God Delusion". Sheldrake tackles Dawkins' ideas of what orthodox science is, head on.
What I want people to glean from this post is that "Science" cannot be trusted --- or at least it cannot be trusted completely. What was yesterday's "scientific fact" is today's laughing stock. Furthermore, science is all too often bought and paid for by the person(s) with the most money. In other words, "Truth" is decided by the highest bidder (HERE and HERE are great examples of this). Unfortunately, this is particularly true when it comes to the medical and pharmaceutical fields (Dr. Sheldrake's 10th point). Can we trust Big Pharma to do the right thing as far as the public health is concerned? Are you joking me? Read SOME OF THESE POSTS and come to your own conclusions.
SCIENCE OR RELIGION?
Just the other day I read that the Mars Rover (at a cost of over 2.5 billion taxpayer dollars), as well as scientists here on earth studying meteorites, have discovered that clay from the Red Planet has (and I quote) "links to the origins of life". How did these scientists make this amazing determination? The clay had higher than expected levels of Boron. Since Boron is one of the numerous elements that is found in genetic material (namely RNA), this should somehow be taken to mean that at one time, Mars contained life. Is this any more "scientific" than the program on the Shroud? Certainly not. In fact, the whole thing wreaks of "religion" --- a word that most evolutionary biologists / scientists truly despise.
Science and religion are funny things. One of those pesky little truths is that much of what passes for "science" is actually religion. EVOLUTION is one great example of this. I would contend that it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in creation ---- or in some sort of "Intelligent Design". This is not to pick on those who believe in evolution, but case in point ----- discussions on Science do not typically become heated; discussions on religion can and often do.
If you want to see an interesting one minute clip of the renowned evolutionary scientists, Dr. Michael Ruse, trying to convince Ben Stein of evolution in the movie Expelled, just click HERE. Yes, Boron is necessary for the formation of RNA. But finding Boron in Martian clay is a far cry from finding any sort of evidence of functional RNA, past or present. It is not enough to simply have all the components present --- the components are here in abundance, but even with all our technolgy we can't synthesize molecules remotely this complex in the lab. The components have to fit together in a very specific (and complex) manner so that they can perform very specific (and complex) functions. In the same way that missing one of the five components of a mousetrap renders it 100% useless, missing one component of RNA renders it useless as well --- and RNA is infinitely more complex than a mousetrap.
When scientists actually find a Martian amoeba or the skeleton of a little green man, I'll pay a bit more attention. Until then, I'll continue to wonder what's going on with my tax dollars.
NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED
Stein does a fantastic job of exposing the hypocrisy and double standards in the field of Science Education and Scientific Research. Watch as he reveals the truth behind Francis Crick's theory of "Directed Panspermia". Crick realized early on that the possibility of something as complex as DNA arising by random mutation was utter poppycock, so he hypothesized that life was brought here by little green men in space ships who "seeded" the planet with life. Laugh as a leading "Origin-of-Life" Scientist (Michael Ruse) attempts to explain to Stein his hypotheses that life arose on the backs of clay crystals that somehow formed themselves into living cells. Stein even manages to make the venerable Richard Dawkins fumble over his own tongue like a schoolboy caught cheating on an exam.
Dr. Schierling completed four years of Kansas State University's five-year Nutrition / Exercise Physiology Program before deciding on a career in Chiropractic. He graduated from Logan Chiropractic College in 1991, and has run a busy clinic in Mountain View, Missouri ever since. He and his wife Amy have four children (three daughters and a son).
Brain Based Therapy
Can You Help
Cardio Or Strength
Cold Laser Therapy
Death By Medicine
Degenerative Joint Disease
D's Of Chronic Pain
Evidence Based Medicine
Gluten Cross Reactivity
Ice Or Heat
Jacks Fork River
Leaky Gut Syndrome
Number One Health Problem
Platelet Rich Therapy
Post Surgical Scarring
Re Invent Yourself
Rib And Chest Pain
Scar Tissue Removal
Sleeping Pills Kill
Stay Or Go
Stretching Post Treatment
Tensegrity And Fascia
The Big Four
Thoracic Outlet Syndrome
Whole Body Vibration