The UnSciences of Clinical Studies

The double blind placebo controlled clinical trial is often touted as the foundation of scientific medical studies. But the science of medicine is broken.

The double blind placebo controlled clinical trial is at the heart of the problem that has taken over the medial mentality, taken over medical science.

The problem? The double blind placebo controlled clinical trial cannot test cures. The problem is trivial, and also impossible. Cures are simply not defined for most diseases. Not only that, the list of incurable diseases is gradually being defined, due to the success of clinical studies.

There is a good reason 'cure' is the only path to sainthood.  Cures are miracles, not the results of medicine - the results of God, or occasionally the results of the servants of God, as evidence of their sainthood. Every cure is an anecdote. Every cure is a miracle.

The World Health Organization's (WHO) the Classification of Diseases, ICD-10 Version:2016: “International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision” identifies three general types of diseases:

 - communicable diseases : HIV, TB, etc.
 - non communicable diseases : hypertension, breast cancer, etc.
 - external causes of injuries : traffic accident, drowning.

In the WHO list of diseases, only communicable diseases can be cured. Non communicable diseases, like hypertension, heart disease, breast cancer, and arthritis cannot be cured. External diseases - broken arms and legs, gunshot wounds, and whacks on the side of the head cannot be cured. Diseases where we do not know the cause, like arthritis, depression and even obesity, cannot be cured. 

Cure is not defined by the WHO. Cure is not defined by medical science. Cure is defined, on a disease by disease basis, as killing the infection, and then testing to see if it is still present.  If you have an infection, and you take an antibiotic, and the infection disappears - you are cured. The medicine cured your disease. Antibiotics, anti fungal, antiviral medicines, and other medicines that kill parasites have the potential to cure. No other medicines can cure. There are no other cures recognized by the science of medicine, or the sciences of clinical studies. 

It is not possible to prove that an illness is incurable.  It is possible to prove an illness is curable, by curing it, but there is no way to prove an illness is incurable.

Why can't we cure every illness? Why can't clinical studies find cures for non communicable diseases? Because cure is not defined.  If you have hypertension, or if you are obese, or if you have heart disease - there is no scientific test to prove a cure.  There is no test that can be used in a clinical study, to prove a cure. If your disease is cured - the cure cannot be seen, cannot be measured, cannot be tested, by any clinical study. 

It has not always been that way. 

Clinical studies measure the number and severity of symptoms. Medicines are administered, and placebos to the control group, and the symptoms are measured again. If the patients with the medicines have fewer symptoms, the medicine wins and the study is published. If not, the placebo wins - and the study is not published. But when a 'cure' occurs, it is not noticed.  Most, perhaps all recent clinical studies don't test for cures. Diseases are 'incurable by omission'. Because cure is not defined, therefore cure is not tested. It cannot be tested. Because we can't test for cures, the disease is incurable. 

There's a perfect example to be found in a pair of clinical studies of Homeopathic Medicines to treat warts. Even though warts are in theory, caused by a virus - a communicable disease, and a cure is easy to see, medical scientists managed to measure symptoms (size of the wart) and ignore cure (absence of the wart), thus proving that a homeopathic medicine worked 'no better than a placebo'. 

In 1966 a clinical study "Homoeopathic versus placebo therapy of children with warts on the hands: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial." tested the application of a homeopathic medicine against a placebo, in the treatment of warts. It found that, in regards to symptoms - homeopathic medicines worked only slightly better than a placebo. Nine patients benefited from the homeopathic medicine, seven from the placebo. The study concluded: "There was no apparent difference between the effects of homoeopathic therapy and placebo in children with common warts under the conditions of this study." But the conclusion was marred a bit by the fact that the homeopathic treatment cured 20% of the patients warts.  The placebo cured 3.3 percent.

Thirty-two years later, in 1998, an almost identical study "A double-blind, controlled clinical trial of homeopathy and an analysis of lunar phases and postoperative outcome." was completed. You might wonder, as I do, about the objectivity of the scientists, who grouped it together with a study of the analysis of phases of the moon on postoperative outcomes. The wart portion repeated the first study almost exactly. There were the exact same number of participants and with regards as to symptoms - the exact same result.  Homeopathic medicines produced shrinkage in nine of the patients, and the placebo produced shrinkage in seven of the patients. The homeopathic medicine performed slightly better than the placebo - but no statistical difference. There was one difference between the studies. The second study did not measure, did not count 'cured'. The study parameters did not include testing for cures.

Because it didn't count 'cures', All ambiguity that had marred first study disappeared. Each and every cure became anecdotal evidence, which could safely be ignored.

What about obesity?  Surely it's possible to cure obesity?  Nope.  Your BMI is a scientific test for obesity, but when you check the 'medical diagnostic tests' for obesity, BMI is only a small part.  The rest? Not clearly defined. Not scientifically defined.  As a result, the 'cure' for obesity cannot be defined. You might bring your BMI down, but that doesn't prove 'the disease' is gone, does not prove a cure. You might, after all - eat a lot of food and the obesity will return, it was always there.  This logic is, frankly, ridiculous.  If anyone eats a lot of food - they will become obese. There is no scientific difference between the 'return of obesity' and an initial case of obesity. So there is no cure for obesity. 

Once you are diagnosed with obesity, you have the disease for life - even if you are no longer 'obese', because obesity is incurable, according to the current science of medicine. The National Obesity Foundation mission says "We believe that obesity is a disease ... that can and must be treated." But they don't use the word 'cure'. Cure, for obesity, is not defined. 

Every illness can be cured. - the Healthicine Creed. 

If we want to use clinical studies to search for cures - we need to define cure for every disease, every type of disease.  Until then, clinical studies cannot be used to search for cures. 

But, but, but... Aren't clinical studies already used to search for cures for cancer, for Alzheimer's, for hypertension, for heart disease?  No, they are not. You might have noticed the phrase '5 year cure' with regards to cancer.  Does this mean we can measure cancer cures, and that clinical studies can test for cancer cures? Nope. The five year cancer cure is not a medical test, not a scientific test, not a clinical test - it's a birthday test.  If you are diagnosed with cancer, and you are still alive five years after your diagnosis - you have been '5 year cured'. Some might argue that you need to be 'cancer free' 5 years later, but that's not technically true. You need only be 'not currently diagnosed with cancer'. Because of the long time span between the presence of cancer and the diagnosis, you may have many cancers and still be declared 'cancer free', declared '5 year cured'.  But if you were diagnosed 4 years and 9 months ago - you are still not '5 year cured'. duh.

When a cure occurs in a clinical study, it is generally ignored. Clinical studies are studies symptoms of disease, studies of patients with similar symptoms - where causes have not been identified. When cause is not identified, cure is not possible - except by accident, by 'anecdote'. If cure is accomplished, it is not noticed, not counted.  Cures are outside of the limited view of 'symptoms' measured by clinical studies. 

Cure is simply not defined for non communicable diseases, and have gradually come to be ignored by almost all clinical studies. Because cures are not defined, they are not recognized - except perhaps as anecdotes. Cures can only be noticed in specific, individual cases of an illness. Every cure is anecdotal evidence. 

Have you noticed.  Whenever anyone claims a cure, the cry is raised.  Is it just 'anecdotal evidence' or is it supported by 'double blind, placebo controlled clinical trials'.  No one notices that these double blind, placebo controlled, clinical trials - don't test cures, don't measure cures.  Cures are final. There are no more symptoms to measure. They are outside of the scope of most clinical trials. 

Clinical trials are broken.  They are breaking the science of medicine. Soon, in medicine, every disease will become incurable. In healthicine - every illness can be cured.

In healthicine, there are two kinds of cures, causal cures and healing cures.

A causal cure is a cure that successfully addresses the cause of the illness.  If you have a bacterial infection, and the infection is removed - you are cured.  Healing may be required for complete recovery.  If you have heart disease, due to an unhealthy diet, and the cause is successfully addressed - you are cured. Healing may be required for a complete recovery.

If you have a broken bone - the cause is gone. The only cure is to heal the damage. But if someone is 'breaking your arm' - you need to address the cause first.

To measure cures - we can measure the cause, and we can measure the healing.  Measuring symptoms does not lead to cures, it leads to 'slower diseases'.

But this test of cures brings an interesting observation.  The body heals.  Health heals.  Medicine does not 'heal'. Medicines cannot provide 'healing cures'. Removing the cause cures non communicable diseases - but adding a medicine cannot remove the cause.  Adding a medicine can only remove the cause of a communicable disease.

In most diseases - medicines cannot cure. Most clinical studies test medicines. Most clinical studies do not test cures.   The unsciences of clinical studies blocks the success of medicine.

to your health, tracy

How to Weave a Poppy for a Secure Fit

As a teenager, I served in Navy League and Sea Cadets.  Every November, I bought, and quickly lost several poppies.  I tried many techniques, but never learnt how to stop losing them.

Last year, a Veteran visited my ESL class.  I volunteer my services teaching English to immigrants new, and some who have been here for years, often working too hard in the family to learn much English.  The Veteran showed us how to wear a poppy, so that we don't lose it.

The first step is to pull the pin back and pinch it against the flower.  This gives you some room on the pin to complete the technique.

It's a good idea to think about location and direction.  The poppy is generally placed over the heart if worn on the chest. You want the point of the pin to be pointing away from your body - so it doesn't stick you by accident.

Step 2 is to fold the cloth, and thread the pin through the fold in the cloth.

 In this picture, I've folded the poppy back so you can see it clearly.

Step three is to weave the pin back through the edge of the poppy.

This makes the poppy secure, because the end of the pin is not loose, it is actually pressed against the fabric by the poppy flower.






All you need to do now is Step 4: to pull the point of the pin forward, so the black is properly centered.

The poppy is now well secured and will not easily fall it.

This technique even holds the poppy in place, most of the time. Even if you are driving and the seat belt is brushing against it, it will be secure.  It is still possible to come loose, but much less likely.

Now that you know how to avoid losing your poppy, you can save some money.  Take a moment when you buy your next poppy - and perhaps pay a bit more, for the extra one you don't have to buy this year.

Cancer Cure Catch 22

Two medical researchers meet in the university lab.  Jim is excited. John is interested.

Jim: "I've found the cure for cancer! All we need are some clinical studies proving it works and the Nobel Prize in Medicine is ours."

John: "Hey! I'm pumped. ... But wait a minute, how can we do a clinical study that tests a cancer cure?"

Jim: "Easy! We enlist some cancer patients, treat them with the cure protocol.  After their cancer is cured, we publish the results. It's that simple.  Of course we'll need to register the study, comply with appropriate bureaucratic and human rights legislation, but the University knows how to get that done."

John looks confused: "But how do we prove the patients are 'cured'?"

"It's obvious!" Jim retorts: "Their cancer is gone. They are cured!"

John: "Actually, it's not obvious.  How can we prove the cancer is gone.  Maybe it's just in remission. Maybe it's not really a cure?"

Jim is getting excited, "That's the great part. Today's cancer cures try to 'kill' the cancer.  Of course you can never be certain you've killed all of the cancer cells. And they don't address the cause of the cancer at all. So of course it returns even if you do kill all of the cancer cells."

John: "And our cure is different?"

Jim: "You bet it's different.  We don't try to kill the cancer cells, we health the body. When the body is healthy, it naturally removes the cancer cells, and no more can grow."

John objects: "Health isn't a verb.  It's a noun."

Jim is still excited, "It's going to be a verb.  We're going to win the Nobel Prize!"

John: "But how can we prove the cancer is cured?"

Jim slows down, and asks, "What are you getting at?"

John: "There is no scientific or medical protocol to prove a cancer has been cured."

"What???"

John continues: "Cured is not defined for cancer. There is no definition of a cancer cure. It's impossible to define a cancer cure study, because we can't prove a cancer has been cured."

Jim asks, "What about all of those people searching for cure? What about all those people running for the cure, shaving their head for the cure, raising money for the cure?"

John, quietly, "Haven't you noticed, many of the cancer fundraising websites have quietly removed the word 'cure' from their main pages. There are some organizations still raising funds for a cure - but their parent organizations have stopped using the word cure. 'Run for the Cure' has become 'Run for the Cause', but they don't mean the 'cause of cancer, they mean the fundraising cause."

"You can't be serious," Jim replies with incredulity.

John goes on, "Look at the American Cancer Society.  Their website says they are 'Dedicated to helping persons who face cancer. Supports research, patient services, early detection, treatment and education.' Their mission is "The American Cancer Society is the nationwide, community-based, voluntary health organization dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by preventing cancer, saving lives, and diminishing suffering from cancer, through research, education, advocacy, and service" They don't use the word 'cure' in their mission. If you search their site for the word cure, you will see a claim that they have spent 4 billion dollars since 1946 to find cures, but other pages reference a 4 billion dollar expenditure on research.  If you check their 'areas of research', you will find biology, cause, treatment, prevention, early detection, diagnosis, etc... but no mention of 'cure'. There are some references to finding a cure, but most of them are more than 5 years old. Cure is not defined, so there is no point in searching for one..."

Jim: "Well, if there is no scientific definition of a cancer cure, we'll have to make one."

John: "But, You can't just make up your own rules about a cancer cure, and then design an experiment to test the rules you made up..."

Jim: "Surely, if we treat people who have cancer, and their cancer goes away, and doesn't come back - they are cured. That might take sometime, but we can eventually prove it is a cure."

"That won't work.  It happens every day.", John says smugly.

Jim: "What happens every day?"

John: "Some people claim have cured their cancer. Someone claims their cancer is cured. But, there is no test for a cure. There is no way to prove the cancer is cured. Because there is no test for a cure, these people, these 'cure claims', are just 'anecdotal evidence'."

Jim: "Anecdotal evidence?"

John: "Yes, a claim, without proof.  Anecdotal evidence."

Jim: "That's not really anecdotal evidence.  Anecdotal evidence is when someone tells me they were cured, and then I tell you.  I'm telling you an anecdote. When they tell me, it's their truth, it's not an anecdote."

John: "Well... the medical systems call it anecdotal evidence... You can't really argue with all those PhDs."

Jim: "But what if one of them is actually a cure?"

John: "We can't tell. There is no way to recognize a cure.  Cure is not defined for cancer. There is no test for a cancer cure.  No medical test. No scientific test.  No legal test.  None."

Jim: "Hmmm.  So we're caught?"

John: "Yes, it's the classic logic problem. A catch 22.  You can't find a cure for cancer, because cancer cure is not defined."

Jim: "and of course we can't define a cancer cure, until we find a cure for cancer?"

John: "You've got it.  Catch 22.  No bell prize for you. But if we work on it long enough, we might get tenure. That's a goal we can achieve."

============================
to your health, tracy

Manure in the Medical Media: neglecting your teeth...could also cause diabetes, heart disease and cancer

Breaking news from The Guardian's Health and Wellbeing section, July 19, 2015: "Why neglecting your teeth could be seriously bad for your health " with the sub-heading "It’s no secret that a lackadaisical approach to dental care leads to fillings and gum disease, but the latest evidence suggests it could also cause diabetes, heart disease and cancer" leading the article and the email blast as well, written by Linda Geddes "freelance science journalist".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What did Linda actually write? "it’s too early to say for sure that gum disease directly causes other more serious illnesses".

"In the past decade, there has been an explosion of new research linking oral health to illnesses such as Type 2 diabetes, cancer and heart disease. The most likely explanation is inflammation"

"Despite such evidence, it’s still possible that gum disease doesn’t directly cause heart disease. Another possibility is nutrition"

"periodontal therapy may actually lower blood-sugar levels in people with Type 2 diabetes."

"The links between gum disease and cancer are more circumspect. "

-----------------------------------------------------------------
So. There is no evidence to support the Guardian's heading that poor dental care "could also cause diabetes, heart disease and cancer". None. The scientific evidence presented studied people who already have diabetes actually suggested that:

The diabetes scientific study presented did not study 'causes' of diabetes, rather it studied effects of periodontal disease on people who already have diabetes.

On the link between periodontal disease and heart disease the study clearly states: "current research does not yet provide evidence of a causal relationship between the two diseases".

People who already have cancer are unable to fight it effectively if they also have dental inflammation.

The article's conclusion: brush your teeth regularly, visit your dentist often for teeth cleaning may have some benefit, but it is not supported by the poorly written, poorly edited, and poorly presented medical media manure.

=============================================

What is the truth about periodontal disease, diabetes, heart disease and cancer? Is there any truth in the article? Yes and no.

The truth about periodontal disease is simple and obvious.

Health is slow.  Health comes from the inside and grows outwards.  You can't make your car run better by polishing the paint job, and you can't make your teeth better by polishing them either. The key to dental health is nutrition, and the key to poor dental health is poor nutrition. Dental disease may require additional attention, but dental health comes not from disease treatments, it comes from eating healthy foods, that grow healthy gums and healthy teeth. \

The proposed link between periodontal disease and diabetes, heart disease, and cancer is inflammation.  But what is the cause of inflammation? Inflammation is caused by poor health, not by neglecting to brush your teeth. Inflammation is caused by poor nutritional health.  Are there any other causes? Yes, physical damage caused by stress or by bacterial infections.

So.. what causes inflammation, periodontal disease, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer?

Poor health, most specifically poor nutrition.

But that's not the news you will hear from anyone selling dental treatments, toothbrushes or toothpaste.

to your health, tracy

 Tracy is the author of two books about healthicine:

The Most Forbidden Word in Modern Medicine

There is a forbidden word in medicine. This word is gradually disappearing, actively shamed, banned to the 'alternative' fringes of medicine, and  replaced by newfangled, more fashionable terms. It is also being replaced, in many cases, by its opposite.

The forbidden word?  CURE.

The word 'cure' is disappearing from medical references and medical textbooks. It is even being replaced, in many cases, with 'incurable'.

Have you noticed? More and more diseases are defined as 'incurable'. There is no cure for the common cold, but that's not all.  Alzheimer's is incurable (but we're raising funds to search for a cure).  Parkinson's is incurable (but we're raising funds to search for a cure). Cancers are incurable (but we're raising funds to search for a cure). Diabetes is incurable (but we're raising funds to search for a cure). Hypertension (high blood pressure) is incurable (but we're raising funds to search for a cure). Do you notice a pattern here? Almost every disease today is incurable, and every disease has an organization, or two, or three, raising funds to search for a cure.Even one of the newest diseases, in terms of being classed as a disease - obesity, has a foundation the "Obesity Treatment Foundation" with a goal - not to cure - but instead of "Optimizing Treatment, Increasing Awareness".

Depression used to be curable, in many cases, but today it is 'treatable'.  It seems to have become incurable. How can that be? Why is it so? Is the field of medicine moving forwards, backwards, or perhaps sideways? First we need to understand the actual medical meaning of 'cure'.

What is a cure?

Webster's dictionary defines cure as:
     "recovery or relief from a disease"
     "something (such as a drug or medical treatment) that stops a disease and makes someone healthy again" That's half right.  Stopping the disease is a cure. "Making someone healthy again", or restoring the healthiness that was lost due to the disease, is healing, not curing. If we cure a leg infection by cutting off the leg, the cure does not 'make them healthy again'. If we only cut off part of the skin, and it grows back - healing makes them healthy again, not the surgical cure.

Definitions in medical dictionaries tend to make more confusion, not less - with definitions that are so broad that almost any aberration from 'average' can be viewed as disease.  Mosby's Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary defines cured broadly as "restoration of health to a person with a disease or other disorder", and defines disease with uncommon restrictions, as "a condition of abnormal vital function involving any structure, part, or system of an organism" and "a specific illness characterized by a recognizable set of signs and symptoms, attributable to heredity, infection, diet, or environment." Stedman's Medical Dictionary online at Drugs.Com defines cure as "to heal, to make well". But, surely healing and curing are independent concepts: the body heals, a treatment cures. Both of these definitions of cure allow the disease to continue to exist, as long as the patient is viewed as 'healthy' or 'well'.

Cure, if we are to find real cures, must be defined as stopping the progress of a the disease.

To understand the word 'cure', we need a clear definition of the word 'disease'.  Webster's, unfortunately, does not provide one.

What is a disease? Webster's gives a similarly poor, weak definition of disease: "a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms".  According to this definition, every physical condition that 'impairs normal functioning' is a disease. As a result, every symptom - a migraine, obesity, can be classified as a disease. Even perfectly natural attributes, like sexual preferences and left-handedness, might be considered diseases. I'm not suggesting that Webster's is at fault. Webster's simply documents what the collective experts think.Why is there no simple, clear definition of disease in the entire field of medicine? If you look everywhere for diseases to treat, you find diseases everywhere, like a boy with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

But the medical hammer is not a cure, it is a 'treatment'. In most cases, medicine is simply not looking for cures.

The news media is making the search for cures worse, not better. A quick scan of Google news for the word 'cure' gives everything but actual cures. The first 15 Google News hits using the word 'cure' in the title gave the following results:
 - 7 articles about fundraising. None of the fundraising organizations spend a majority of funds searching for cures, they search for 'treatments', and ways to help patients 'live with their disease'.
 - 5 articles about 'searching for a  cure'.  None of the articles were actually about real cures for real diseases in real people.  Fake diseases in mice. Treating symptoms. No hint of actual cure.
 - 3 articles about nonsense 'cures'.  A cure for boredom, golf slumps and retail store summer doldrums.

There are no articles about actual cures for actual diseases. In the first ten pages of a Google News search for a disease cure, there is exactly one.  A cure for Hepatitis C, a drug that kills the virus.  It is notable that the only 'cures' that are actually documented as true medical cures are toxic chemicals that kill invading bacteria or viruses. There are no other disease cures in medical texts.

Why does the news media misuse the word 'cure' so much? Because the word cure has sizzle, gets attention - and also, because there are so few actual 'cures' to report on.  Fewer than 1 per decade is my best estimate. How many new cures for were discovered in the last 10 years? The last 20 years? The last 50 years? The last 100 years? How many patients were cured of their diseases this year, last year, the last 10 years? We don't know. There are no statistics for cures. There is no science of cures. As a result, there is no news about cures. Lots of fundraising and non-cures for non-diseases. Few cures.

The science of healthicine provides a definition of disease designed to facilitate 'cures'. A disease is not a physical state, it has an active progression.

a disease is an ongoing progressive negative medical condition, that has an ongoing cause. 

With this definition, all diseases can be cured.
 - It is cured when the cause is removed or stopped.
 - If it cannot be cured, it is not a disease.

It is important to recognize that diseases are progressive.  If it does not have a progression, it might be a disability, a dysfunction, or a simple attribute of the patient, but it is not a disease. If the progression is stopped, the disease is cured. Every disease has a cause, or causes - and if key causes are removed, the progression will be stopped, and the disease has been cured.  If the cause returns, the disease will appear again, as a new disease, due to the 'new (similar) cause'.

There are lots of things that do not cure disease, but are sometimes presented as if they were cures. A 'treatment' is not a cure, unless it 'stops the disease'. A symptomicine is not a cure. Aspirin and Tylenol are not 'cures' for headache. They are symptomicines, hiding the symptoms, but not addressing the cause, not curing the disease.  When their 'hiding' fades, the symptoms reappear.

It is important to clearly distinguish between 'remission' and cure. Remission is a remission of symptoms of the disease.  When symptoms go into remission the disease is hidden, but the cause might not have been addressed. In these cases, remission of symptoms actually facilitates the progression of the disease.  When symptoms are not visible the patient and doctors are less vigilant. Today's medical systems have great difficulty distinguishing between remission and cure. Was the patient cured, or is the disease in remission? We have no tools to tell the difference in many cases.

A vaccine is not a cure, it is a preventative, although there are many preventatives, that are also cures. Vitamin C, or foods that contain Vitamin C, prevent scurvy.  If you get scurvy, Vitamin C, or foods containing Vitamin C, are the cure. No 'medicines' can cure scurvy.

One of the most famous medical books, the MERCK Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, does not call Vitamin C a 'cure' for scurvy.  It says: 'Treatment consists of oral Vitamin C', but does not use the word 'cure'. Has the word cure become forbidden. If you check the MERCK manual a bit more carefully, you will learn that 'cure' is not defined, is not in the index, and not in the table of contents. Cure is not clearly defined by the field of medicine, it seems to be forbidden. Or at best, ignored, pushed to the side, discounted, not clearly defined.

It's clear that scurvy can be caused by lack of Vitamin C (there might be other causes). It is also clear that scurvy caused by deficiencies of Vitamin C can be cured, the progression can be stopped, with Vitamin C, or foods containing Vitamin C.  Furthermore, once scurvy has been cured, or before scurvy is present, it can be prevented by appropriate consumption of Vitamin C. The cure for scurvy is not 'remission' of symptoms - it is a true cure. The disease is no longer present, although if the disease caused physical damage, that damage might never heal completely.

Many nutritional deficiencies lead to specific diseases that progress as long as the cause is present. In all cases, the only cure is to meet the deficiency, not medicine can cure these diseases.

It is also clear that a new case of scurvy will arise if the cause returns. It is important to note that this is not a return of the disease, it is a return of the cause. If a person fails to consume sufficient Vitamin C - either in foods or in supplements - the person will get scurvy, or get scurvy 'again'. A new case of scurvy.  When a patient's scurvy is cured and then reappears, there is no 'remission' of symptoms, and 'worsening' of symptoms. There is simply a cure, and a new occurrence.

Nutrient toxicity, or over consumption, is also a disease that cannot be cured by medicines or medical treatments. If you are consuming too much Vitamin A, you will get the disease hypervitaminosis A. There is a cure.  It is simple. Stop consuming too much Vitamin A. No medicine can cure hypervitaminosis A, and any attempts to develop a medicine to treat hypervitaminosis A would be seen as nonsense. There are many diseases that can be cured, but not with medicines.

Obesity is medically classified as a disease - although it can easily exist as a stable state not an active progression. It would not be classified as a disease in the science of healthicine. The process of becoming obese, of continual weight gain could be classified as a disease, but presence of excess weight is simply an attribute, or a symptom, not a disease.

If someone is obese, and they lose weight, such that they are no longer obese, are they cured? The Obesity Treatment Foundation does not mention 'cure', does not suggest that obesity can be 'cured'. They ask for donations to promote awareness and treatment, but the word "cure" is avoided.

Symptoms of obesity can be cured by food restrictions. However, if this temporary fix does not address the causes and the should be considered a cure. If the cause is addressed, obesity can be cured and reversed.  If the cause comes back, the disease will return.

We pretend to know that the cause of obesity is overeating. But we don't know the cause of overeating - and there is considerable evidence that the cause of overeating is obesity. We will not find the cure to the 'obesity epidemic' until we find the real causes.

We will not find the cure for any individual patient's disease, nor for any class of diseases, until we find and address the true causes.

How might we find cures?  How might we find the causes of today's many 'incurable' diseases?

We can only find cures for diseases when we use better definitions for disease, and better definitions for cures.

disease: an ongoing progressive negative medical condition, that has an ongoing cause.

cure: stopping the progression of a disease.  A treatment that stops the progression of a disease by addressing key causes.

to your health, tracy


 Tracy is the author of two books about healthicine:

On the Healthiness of Corners

I was born in 1952, like Mad Magazine, (that's my Alfred E. Neuman impersonation), in the days when corporal punishment was commonplace. My misbehaviors were often met with a threat, or a deliberate spanking. I'm sure I'm the better for it in some ways.  But the punishment I dreaded more, the punishment I believe was much more effective, for me, was simpler: kneeling in the corner.

"Go kneel in the corner" was a simple punishment, but very effective.  A bit of meditation, time to think about my actions, or in-actions, and their consequences. No one to talk to, all by myself. No chance for misbehavin' in the corner. If I was too energized to kneel in the corner, my father might stand behind me, making sure I didn't run away, giving my body time to settle. "Face into the corner. Think about what you have done."

Talking was no use.  The corner was for silence.  If I tried to talk, the answer was "no talking", or "we can talk about it after your time in the corner". Of course after my time in the corner, I had little interest in talking.

Only the corner to look at. Even if I closed my eyes, I could still see it.  My siblings, in the background behind me - playing, paying no attention. Me, stuck in the corner. I didn't dare move - spanking was the next level of punishment and only temporary a respite, because afterwards it was back in the corner again.

How long in the corner? I never knew.  It felt like forever, but I suspect my entire time in the corner was less than an hour or two. I had to stay in the corner until my mom, or dad, said I could go.  Had they forgotten about me?  Not allowed to talk, I couldn't ask. How long had I been here? Hard to tell... minutes seemed like hours.

What to think about? There was only one thing to think about: how did I get here?  I might place blame on my brother, or my sister, or my parents - but that got me nowhere.  I was the one in the corner.  The corner kept reflecting my focus back to me, giving me time and a reminder to reflect on myself, and my actions. My siblings were free to go, inside the house, outside playing.  And I was here, stuck in the corner.

I don't remember my parents talking to me about what I had done wrong.  Maybe they did, but I don't remember. I don't remember what I did - 50 years ago.  But I remember the corner.

When I got older, I was allowed to stand in the corner, instead of kneeling. Interesting, because I could sway left to right or back and forth.  This let my mind sway as well, considering different actions I might have taken, different choices.

Today, I have a healthy respect for corners.  Corners are everywhere. They exist where one side joins the other side. Edges are inside-out corners. Change happens in the corners, at the edges. One wall is marching along, and it hits the corner and turns. Change can happen when you are stuck in a corner as well. Corners are the end - as far as you can go. Corners are the opposite of freedom. If we want freedom, it is important to understand the opposites, and their logic.

If you've gone too far, you can find yourself cornered, stuck in a corner. Then what? Rushing away can be ineffective, take some time, ask yourself - how did I get here?  How can I avoid getting stuck here in the future?

Next time you are stuck in a corner, use it as an opportunity to reflect, to learn, to health yourself. Ask "how did I get here?"  "have I cornered myself"... My parents never put me in the corner - I did it all by myself.  What?  Me worry?

to your health, tracy
 Tracy is the author of two books about healthicine:

Nutritional Nonsense: from Coffee to Cancer

I recently spotted, this question on Quora: "What are the nutritional benefits of consuming coffee on a daily basis?" And I thought, now there's an interesting challenge for the 'science of nutrition'. So, I took it upon myself to answer with current nutritional science - according to Wiki, and to add some comments about the lack of science.  My answer, by the way, has already been down-voted.

What are the nutritional benefits of coffee? There were, of course, many answers, ranging from antioxidants, to protection against diabetes and dementia, to the nonsensical 'it gives you energy' - coffee has no calories, therefore it cannot give you energy.

What are the nutritional benefits of coffee according to nutritional science? I typed the 'nutrition of coffee' into Google and got the following from Wiki:
------------------------------------------------------
Coffee: Nutrition Facts Amount Per 1 fl oz (29.6 g)100 grams 6 fl oz (178 g)1 cup (8 fl oz) (237 g)100 grams   - Calories 0

% Daily Value*
Total Fat 0 g 0%
Saturated fat 0 g 0%
Polyunsaturated fat 0 g
Monounsaturated fat 0 g
Trans fat 0 g
Cholesterol 0 mg 0%
Sodium 2 mg 0%
Potassium 49 mg 1%
Total Carbohydrate 0 g 0%
Dietary fiber 0 g 0%
Sugar 0 g
Protein 0.1 g 0%
Caffeine 40 mg
Vitamin A 0%
Vitamin C 0%
Calcium 0%
Iron 0%
Vitamin D 0%
Vitamin B-6 0%
Vitamin B-12 0%
Magnesium 0%

* Per cent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet. Your daily values may be higher or lower depending on your calorie needs.
------------------------------------------------------------
My Notes:
1. Coffee has zero calories.  It is not a source of energy, although it might 'energize' you. Actually, according to the above list, coffee has a small amount of protein, and proteins contain calories.
2. Most of the items on the list of nutrients have zero value, indicating that they are NOT PRESENT in coffee.  This is a telling fact about many nutritional labels, the presence of non-ingredients.
3. The only nutritional contents of coffee, according to the science of nutrition, are sodium, potassium, protein, caffeine.
4. Many ingredients of coffee, are simply ignored by the nutritional analysis, because they are 'not on the list' of nutrients that have been deemed important by nutritional scientists. Studies of the benefits of coffee cite anti-oxidants and other chemicals, but they are 'not on the list'.
5. The listing for "Total Carbohydrate" has an error, even though carbohydrates are not present in coffee. But that's not enough error, The list of ingredients shows a 'Daily Value' of zero percent.  But there is no Daily Value for carbohydrates, so a Daily Value score of zero is nonsense.
6. The nutrient list contains 'Saturated Fats' and 'Monounsaturated Fats' even though coffee contains no saturated fats and no monounsaturated fats. Presumably this is because we used to believe that saturated fats were unhealthy.  Science has recently proven this theory wrong - and also proven that the benefits believed to come from monosaturated fats are illusory. But much of published science has not yet caught up to the latest research.
7. The nutrient list includes 'Trans Fats', even though coffee does not contain any trans fats, and trans fats are not nutrients - they are toxic chemicals.
8. The largest part of coffee is, duh.... water.  But water is not listed as a nutrient, even though the theoretical 'Daily Value' of water is 8 glasses.
9. According to Wiki, if you consume a diet of "2000 calories" of coffee daily, you will receive almost no nutrients.  And... according to Wiki, coffee contains zero calories, so a 2000 calorie diet requires drinking a few million cups a day, for nothing. Or adding milk and sugar.

In short, the nutritional value of coffee given by Google, from Wiki is mostly bunk, error prone nonsense, full of empty non-facts, non-ingredients, missing the most common ingredient - water, and missing any ingredients that are actually studied research into the benefits of coffee. At the same time as it misses most of the healthy ingredients of coffee, it lists many items that are not present at all.

Frankly, much of the current science of nutrition is similar BUNK, and this question and answer provides ample proof.

But this is not the only example.  Let's get more serious about the science of nutrition.

What foods cause cancer, and what foods protect against cancer?

This is a serious, important question. What does science have for an answer?  A recent meta-study produced this informative graphic, from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

It seems clear from the graphic, what everyone already knows.  Everything causes cancer.  And everything protects against cancer. Coffee causes cancer, coffee protects against cancer, and one study says we're not sure. That's the current state of nutritional science.

How can this happen? Why does this happen? There are two main causes.

Studies of Illness

Health is whole, illness - is a hole in your health.  Healthiness and illness are like 'light and darkness'. If someone spends their entire life studying darkness, they will know nothing about colour, saturation, hue, brightness, heat, wavelengths, rainbows, etc.  Their knowledge will be limited to various shades of black and grey, dark and darker. And so it is with health and illness. Many scientists spend their entire lifetimes studying illness, measuring illness, searching for illness and trying to 'kill' illness, or if killing it is not possible, to 'treat' the symptoms of illness.

But we know little about healthiness, there is no science of healthiness.

There are no scientists who study healthiness. There is no science of healthicine. Alice and Zizi provide the classic example.  Alice and Zizi are two women, two friends, neither of whom has any illness.  They are both 'healthy' according to modern medical science. But the question arises:

Who is healthier, Alice - or Zizi?

The more we look into this question, the more we realize that we have no tools, no techniques, no science to measure healthiness.  Alice and Ziz have no illness, no signs and symptoms of illness, so in theory, they are both perfectly healthy.  But we know this is not true. One of them is probably 'healthier' than the other. But which one? A historical analysis might show that Alice gets more colds than the other, for example, and that their colds last longer. Is that a measure of healthiness? And Zizi might be diagnosed with cancer tomorrow.  Such is the nature of cancer diagnosis. But today, we have no tools to answer the question:  "Who is healthier, Alice or Zizi?"

Nutritional studies are based entirely on illness. As a result, we have four scientific studies showing that coffee prevents cancers, one study that shows no harm or benefit, and four studies showing that coffee cause cancer.  Nutritional science in action.  Bunk.

Reductionism

When we attempt to study healthiness by measuring single things in isolation, we get nonsense.

Attempting to measure the benefits of coffee by analysis of the individual contents, and ignoring the contents that are 'not on our list' result in superficial analysis and nonsense.

Attempting to measure the effects of 'coffee' on cancer, in isolation from everything else in the diet, results in nonsense.

And the proof is there for everyone to see.

What is the way out?

Nutritional science finds some truths about nutrition.  Unfortunately, many of the 'truths' that are found are simplistic nonsense, useless to anyone who actually wants to find health.

If studies of illness, and reductionist studies cannot find the truth about nutrition, how can we find the answers?

The answer can only be found in studies of healthiness: healthicine. When we begin to study healthiness in earnest, we will begin to see many truths that are invisible today.  When we turn away from studies of illness, the darkness, we will begin to see the light.  There is a lot to learn.

to your health, tracy

Tracy is the author of two books about healthicine:

Medical Bigots

According to Webster's, a bigot is "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc." What is a medical bigot?  A medical bigot strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc in various fields of medicine.  A medical bigot sees things in black and white, devoid of color, or complexity. A medical bigot wants simple answers, the simpler the better.

"A strong or unfair dislike for other people, ideas, etc." perfectly describes the bigot. A bigot has a strong dislike for strange persons, unfamiliar ideas, difficult questions, challenges, controversy, etc., preferring the safety of their current knowledge, and position. Medical bigots don't make good scientists, because scientists are always ready, willing and able - eager even, to challenge their current knowledge.

The Vaccine Debates: A Healthicine View

The internet is awash with vaccination posts.  Everybody, it seems, has an opinion, and want you to see their point of view. Punt "vaccine myths and facts" into Google today and you will see over 700,000 hits. Many of the so called "myths" are not myths at all. The 'myths' chosen, and the 'facts' that follow are opinions, designed to support each individual author's objectives.

Let's forget myths.  What vaccine facts are actually important? What vaccine questions are important? What answers are important?

This post presents some important questions about vaccines - as a test.  Can you answer these questions?  Check it out, move the cursor over the answer of your choice and see your results.

1. What is the purpose of a vaccine?

Toronto Star vs the Vax-apologists

The Toronto Star recently published a report about the HPVvaccine Gardasil. The result was a firestorm from vax-apologists. The vax-apologists would like the story to disappear. There are reports of people cancelling their subscriptions to the Star.

Maybe the Star should reconsider the title of the story, and the point. Let's suppose the Star had printed a different story.  A different heading.  But the same facts, minus the vaccine references. The Star might have reported a story like this:

==============================================

Young Girls Suffer and Die, But No-one Cares

A New Equation for Stupidity

In a TED talk filmed in November 2013, Alex Wissner-Gross offers "A new equation for intelligence".  I'm not sure if there was an 'old equation for intelligence'? The talk was based on the concepts of a research paper published in April 2013: Causal Entropic Forces. I must confess that the mathematics of this paper is way beyond my understanding. However, many of the statements made in the TED talk simplify the concepts to the point where we can understand and make sense (or perhaps nonsense) of them.

According to Wissner-Gross, "Intelligence is a force F that acts so as to maximize future freedom of action. With strength T, with the diversity of possible accessible futures S, to some future time horizon 'tau'."  This is a complex statement, but in does make some sense.  In a much simpler way, we might say that "Intelligent things are things that attempt to optimize and maintain their future flexibility, their future options."

Wissner-Gross describes a number of experiments that demonstrate this theory and support this formula for intelligence.  The experimental descriptions in the TED talk, and in the research paper are deliberately simple. They are designed to 'optimize or maintain their options for future states'.

How can this be done?  You can only create a system that can "optimize it's future options", if you make the system, in some way,
 - aware of it's current state in some trivial representation
 - able to make choices and to take actions (modeled as entropy)
 - and able to count resulting future options, eg. aware of ALL OF the consequences of it's choices.
and one other point, which is not discussed by the Wissner-Gross presentation, ignorance of external systems and variables.  We shall come to discuss this later.

In other words, Wissner-Gross created a system with a fundamental level of 'self consciousness' although no sense of 'free-will'. They are computer programs designed, driven to seek actions that 'optimize future options' by creating 'simulated entropy' models. There is no free to chose other options.

What Wissner-Gross observed was that when we build a self-aware simulation and force it to 'choose', actions that result in the most 'future possible choices', we get a system that appears to be 'intelligent'. Is it intelligent? We might say that, if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it looks intelligent, and acts like it is intelligent, then it is intelligent. Or maybe not?

Wissner-Gross gives us a mathematical formula, or equation for intelligence: Intelligence is a force F that acts so as to maximize future freedom of action. With strength T, with the diversity of possible accessible futures S, to some future time horizon 'tau'.

F(intelligence) = T ∇ Sτ

It's an interesting formula. Intelligence the force, the drive that results when an entropic system falls into a state where it naturally chooses actions that maximize future options. When we consider that for a moment, we can rephrase the formula. We originally described it as:

F(of intelligence) = T ∇ Sτ

We might instead view it as:

F(of healthiness) = T ∇ Sτ

Thus, the force of healthiness acts so as to maximize future freedom of action. With strength T, with the diversity of possible accessible futures S, to some future time horizon 'tau'.


We can look at this formula from another perspective.  Maybe it's the formula for 'life'?

F(of life) = T ∇ Sτ

The life force is the tendency for systems that make choices that increase their future options - to live longer and build complexity. Health is a result of life and does not exist without life. Life, intelligence, and healthiness emerge and become more complex as the system becomes more complex. Intelligence and healthiness are different ways of looking at the same thing. The systems created in Wissner-Gross's simulations are not 'alive', and they are supported by external decision systems that make their choices. Real life evolves from simple, similar situations, that facilitate a rise in complexity.  That 'rise in complexity' occurs when simple systems encounter other systems with similar and complimentary properties and discover, or evolve, the ability to cooperate with other systems.

Life is a result of freedom to choose, including choosing to cooperate with other entities (systems) that have freedom to choose, thus increasing the freedoms of all involved.

Which came first: intelligence or life?  Is it a chicken-egg question? Or does it depend on how we define intelligence, and how we define life?  Does life, or does intelligence exist as soon as a system gains 'freedom to choose'? Or does 'freedom to choose' arise out of system complexity, as it approaches 'life' and 'intelligence'? Can intelligence exist without life? Can life exist without intelligence? Or does 'freedom to choose' simply not exist, except as an illusion we believe, because our life systems are so complex that the give us the illusion of choice?

It is also interesting to consider the 'time horizon', because different time horizons can lead to very different results - in more complex systems. An action that might be intelligent when considering a daily activity, might be stupid when we consider it from a month, year, or lifetime perspective.

And that leads us to the question of 'stupidity'.  If we have a formula for intelligence, is there a formula for stupidity? Is stupidity the inverse of intelligence, and intelligence the inverse of stupidity. Is a rock stupid? No. A rock is dumb, because it cannot hear, it cannot see, it cannot speak, it cannot think or decide, and it cannot act.  But it is not stupid, because it cannot make stupid decisions nor take stupid actions. Stupid things (or stupid systems) are things that take stupid actions.

What is a stupid action?  What is stupidity? If "Intelligence is a force F that acts so as to maximize future freedom of action. With strength T, with the diversity of possible accessible futures S, to some future time horizon 'tau'."

Then Stupidity is "a force F that acts so as to limit or minimize future freedom of action. With strength T, with the diversity of possible accessible futures S, to some future time horizon 'tau'."

F(stupidity) = T ∇ Sτ

Intelligence is a set of actions that are deliberately considered and chosen to keep the system alive and as active as possible.  Stupidity is the set of actions that are deliberately considered and designed to shut down the system.  Entropy is naturally stupid. It works inexorably to diffuse energy in a system.  But stupidity is even worse. Stupidity is 'system suicide'.

Now we can see that something is clearly wrong.  In real life, stupidity is not 'suicide'.  Stupidity does not lead directly to death - in real life. Sometimes it even does quite well, thank you very much. Stupid luck exists.

In the model of healthiness and unhealthiness discussed in the post Embracing Unhealthiness, we recognized that healthiness is linked to unhealthiness such that the sum of healthiness and unhealthiness equals 100 percent of our health potential.  The sum of healthiness and unhealthiness is your 'potential for healthiness'.

What about the sum of intelligent choices and stupid choices? Now we can see the cracks in this model of 'intelligence'. The model is not 'free to choose', it can only choose what is calculated as optimal in terms of future freedoms within the specified time period.

It reminds me of an old joke about an uncle, and a small boy.  The uncle calls over one of the relatives and says "Watch this!". Then he turns to the small boy and asks "Would you like to have this nice, shiny silver dollar, or would you prefer this old, dirty, crumpled up five dollar bill?" The young boy chooses the shiny silver dollar.

But when the relative talks to the boy later, and asks "Don't you know that you could buy 5 silver dollars with that bill?", the young boy answers "Of course I do.  But, as soon as I take the paper money, he'll stop offering me the silver dollar."

The boy has figured out something intelligent.  He does not make the 'optimal decision'.  He does not have a specific 'time horizon' in mind.  He would prefer that there is no time horizon, as long as he keeps getting paid.  He has used his intelligence to look 'outside the system'.  This is one thing Wissner-Gross's models cannot do.  They are designed to take all of the information available, and calculate the best option. There are no external variables, no external facts.

Intelligence is making good decisions when you DON'T have all the facts. If you have all of the facts, you don't need intelligence to decide - a machine can decide.

There is another serious flaw in the Wissner-Gross model of intelligence. Real intelligence must acknowledge that other intelligences exist, learn to cooperate with them, and to compete with them. One of Wissner-Gross's models seems to present 'cooperation', but it's not cooperation between two systems, where each gets to 'choose to cooperate or not', it's simply a complex model that searches for the best solution, and as a result, looks like it is cooperating.

The goal of a real intelligence is to understand more.  And when it understands more, to find better questions. And sometimes, the goal of a real intelligence is suicide.  We are all going to die.  Some of us want to choose when and how to die.  The Wissner-Gross model of intelligence ignores this aspect of intelligence.

The Wissner-Gross model is missing two more fundamental elements of intelligent decisions.  Memory and risk.  A real intelligent system has a memory of past decisions, and can make rapid decisions, when necessary - based on memory, not on calculation.  Decisions based on memory free up the calculation parts of the brain for decisions where time is not a priority. Risk assessment is also a fundamental factor in intelligence.  What good does it do to choose the 'most future options' if what you are choosing is the number of bee stings you might receive?

If the Wissner-Gross model is not 'intelligence', what is it? It is a formula for self interest, based on rational calculations. The formula can drive the system towards a longer life, a more stable life. Maybe even a more boring life. But, boring can be intelligent if you are an accountant, trying to make money.

In real life, we often use our intelligence to rationalize our decisions. And that's a good way to succeed. If we attempt to only make 'rational' decisions, that are rationalized before the decision is made, we will make very few decisions - because all of the facts are not available.

The Wissner-Gross formula is a powerful tool for decision making.  Much like a calculator, or a spreadsheet.  But it is not a formula for 'intelligence'. Intelligence requires irrational thought.

This is a blog about health freedom. What has this got to do with health, and health freedom? There are some powerful implications for freedom, and also for health. Freedom to choose increases our ability to make intelligent decisions. Constraints on freedom reduce our ability to make intelligent decisions, resulting in more stupid decisions. This is not stated directly by the Wissner-Gross model, because the model is not actually free to choose.  It can only choose the option that has the most future freedoms.

In a similar fashion, we can also see that the sum of intelligence and stupidity (unintelligence), the sum of decisions that maximize future options and decisions that minimize future options in any system - the total potential for action in any system is 100 percent.  None of the systems created by Wessner-Gross exceeded their systemic limits of intelligence. None of the systems exhibited 'exceptional' intelligence. This might seem obvious, but it is worth understanding.  No single system can exceed its own limits of intelligence.

The best way to increase intelligence is to increase the complexity of the analysis, not to limit it.  The best way to increase intelligence is through communities, not rationalization by a single individual. The best way to improve healthiness is to recognize that healthiness is not just an individual trait, it is also a measure of the success of our societies, our communities. The best way to create healthy communities, is to work to create healthy communities, not to create selfish independent models of intelligence.

to your health, tracy

tracy

Tracy is the author of two books about healthicine: 

Embracing Unhealthinesses

In Healthicine, a healthiness is a measure of health. Measures of illness are often direct measurements of signs or symptoms.  Measurements of healthiness are more complex.  A measurement of healthiness must, at the very least, contain a ratio.  

For example, height is not a measure of healthiness. Nor is weight.  When we combine the measure of height with the measure of weight in ratio – as we do when we calculate BMI (Body Mass Index), we begin create a crude measure of healthiness.

However, BMI is not a useful measure of healthiness without a goal. Different people have different BMI goals, and therefore one BMI result might be very healthy for one person, and not so healthy for another person.

When we have a goal, we can rank the health measurement against the goal, and create a percentage of healthiness. If my BMI goal is 20 and my BMI is 25, then my BMI health score might be calculated as 20/25 or 80 percent. Of course that calculation technique is arbitrary, and a different method of calculating might determine that my health score is actually only 65 percent.  At present, there are no standards for measuring or calculating health scores – and the field is very, very complex. We can expect that, as the science of healthicine advances, some calculating techniques will have more value than others. We need to learn to measure healthiness, and to calculate healthiness scores.

Once we can calculate a score for a specific healthiness, we can see that it has an inverse.  If you BMI health score is 65%, then the inverse is 35%.  What is the name of the ‘inverse’ of your healthiness score?

The inverse of the healthiness score, when the score is calculated as a percentage is your ‘potential for improvement in healthiness’. You can improve your BMI healthiness by 35%, and no more – because at that time your BMI healthiness will be 100 percent. Each different healthiness score gives a specific healthiness rating and a corresponding level or potential for improvement, a corresponding level of unhealthiness. 

There is another important term for ‘potential for improvement in healthiness’: unhealthiness.  When we measure healthiness, and map it to a percentage scale:

 the inverse of healthiness is ‘unhealthiness’.

Unhealthiness is not ‘bad’.  It is simply your potential for improvement.  This is an important concept of healthicine. If we do not have any unhealthiness, we have no room to improve our health. A very unlikely situation, less likely to last for any length of time. 

If we are to learn about health, to improve our health, we need to embrace the concept of 'unhealthiness', to recognize that we each have many levels of unhealthiness, many types of "room for improvement" in our health, We need to learn to use that room, that unhealthiness, to improve our health. When we do, many so called 'illnesses' and 'diseases' will be understood to be unhealthiness, which cannot be cured by medicine, only by health. 

tracy

Tracy is the author of two books about healthicine: 

Is Medicine harming your Health?

Is your medicine making you healthier, or sicklier? Many medicines are designed to be very strong, so strong that they harm your healthiness - to fight your sickness rapidly. Which medicines improve your healthiness?

Is Medicine harming your Health? Is the field of medicine harming our health?  Are you taking medicines that are decreasing your healthiness?

Modern medicine is blind to health.  You'll often hear phrases like 'keep your health', 'restore your health', 'regain  your health', 'protect your health' from practitioners of medicine.

What's wrong with that?  Each of those phrases suggests that health can only be 'present', or 'absent'.

Health is always present, unless you are dead. You cannot 'lose your health'. When you are sick, you 'haven't lost your health'. It's still there, fighting your illness. Your health is only 'lost' when your life ends.

Medicine, is a tool we use to fight illness. In many cases, the medicines we use to fight illness also fight healthiness. But this is not printed on the label.

Which medicines harm your healthiness? Which medicines improve your healthiness?  Which medicines harm your healthiness, so that it can improve?  Which medicines improve your healthiness, so it can fight your illness? Which medicines improve your 'symptoms' while harming your healthiness?  Which improve your symptoms while improving your healthiness?  Which might make your symptoms worse, while improving your healthiness?

A medicine improves your state of wellness, decreasing your illness, but does little to change your healthiness.

A symptomicine can improve your symptoms of illness, while actually decreasing your healthiness. Most medicines sold today are symptomicines - because they appear to give positive results.

A healthicine increases your healthiness, and can also improve your state of wellness, decreasing your illness, at the same time.

The wrong medicine can only harm your health. We need to track wrong medicines, because they are often administered by medical professionals as well as by ourselves.

None of this is printed on the label. None of it is studied by medical science.

The label lists 'side effects'.  What are side effects? Side effects are usually negative health effects. But medicine, the science of medicine, is blind to health, does not study healthiness - and thus cannot put 'healthiness' information on the label.

What can you do?  If you are prescribed a medicine, ask two very important questions:

1. Will this medicine cure my illness.  If it does not cure, it is not a true medicine.
2. Is this a medicine designed only to treat my symptoms.  Most medicines are symptomicines. But if you really want to improve your healthiness, to beat your illness, you need more than a symptomicine.

If we are to find health, we need freedom, not just freedom to act, we also need free access to information, real information, about the medicines we are using.

to your health, tracy

Tracy is the author of two books about healthicine: 

Vitamin Victory over Corporate CODEX Shame?

Scott Tips is fighting for all of us, when he says “If Codex wants to remain relevant to consumers, then it must create food standards that are truly healthy and make sense.”

Scott C. Tips is a man I can support. As far as I know, he is the only person in the world who is actively fighting for your health. Scott works for the National Health Federation, an organization that fight for your health rights. Although I might quibble with the NHF's definition of health, I support their goals and many of their actions. I want more.

As far as I can tell, Scott Tips has, for many years, been the only 'human' representative at the meetings of CODEX, an organization of organizations of organizations, setting up worldwide standards for commerce, including the commerce of nutrition, thus health.

CODEX is a corporation of corporations.  It has no interest in the health of people, only in the 'persons' who are corporations.  CODEX knows nothing about health, and cares less.

CODEX defines, among other things, Nutrient Reference Values - recommend amounts of essential nutrients 'for health'.  But in truth, NRVs are not defined for health, and are often defined by 'as much illness as we can tolerate'.  All CODEX standards are defined by illness. There is no organization in the world that studies health and healthiness, much less a world wide organization devoted to the study of health.  Someday....

Scott Tips recent report on Vitamin C, gives some insight.  CODEX has for many years, discussed setting the Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) for consumption of Vitamin C at 45 mg. There is danger in nonsense, and this value is nonsense.

Health is not meeting a 'minimum' need. Health, true health, is searching for the optimal intake of all nutrients, not just essential vitamins and minerals.  How can we find the optimal intake? We need to look for it.

Health cannot be found by setting worldwide limits on the sale of essential nutrients to people, worldwide limits on what you can purchase.  True health is found in true freedom, not in legislation designed by and designed to support goals of corporations.

Yesterday, the NHF and Scott Tips report that CODEX has agreed to set the NRV for Vitamin C at 100 mg per day, and the suggested level of 45 mg per day has disappeared from the discussion.  I don't know how much the efforts of Scott helped facilitate this decision, but I applaud him for being there and reporting on the proceedings - as our the representative of the people.

If you want to learn more about CODEX, check out some of Scott's blog posts.

My hat's off to you, Scott Tips, and to the National Health Federation. Keep up the good work!
tracy

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: