Personal Health Freedom

What is Health Freedom?

2012-02-23T17:09:00.000-08:00

Do you understand health freedom? Does anyone understand health freedom? Health Freedom has become a buzzword used by many websites. Do any of them know what they are talking about?

No.

Most of them have no concept, much less a definition of health. Most, possibly all of them are talking about Medical Freedoms, not Health Freedoms. Many of them have their own agendas - which have little to do with health freedom. Sales of products or treatments. Political agendas. etc.

I've been cruising the web again, checking out sites and blogs claiming to represent "Health Freedom". Pity none of them has a copy of the dictionary. Here's my review of Google's top list.

http://www.cchfreedom.org/ - Citizens Council for Health Freedom: Securing Health Freedom for All
Their website says:
About: CCHF is a free-market resource for designing the future of health care.
me - Health Care is not health. Health care is 'sick care'.
In October 2010, the organization changed its name from Citizens' Council on Health Care (CCHC) to Citizens' Council for Health Freedom (CCHF).
me - eg. Health Freedom sounds more jazzy than Health Care, so let's use that instead.
Their Mission: CCHF supports patient and doctor freedom, medical innovation, and the right of citizens to a confidential patient-doctor relationship.
me - clearly Citizens Council for Health Freedom sees themselves as carrying the banner for 'medical freedom'. But they are wrong. Medicine is a subset of health - and CCHF knows nothing about health, only about politics and medicine.
What is the true mission of CCHF? In their list of goals you will find tax issues and government mentioned in three of 10 goals. Free markets, market competition, private insurance in three of ten goals. You will not find a single goal that directly respects your right to make health decisions.

http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/ The Institute for Health Freedom (IHF) Has Dissolved and Transferred its Health Freedom Watch Newsletter to CCHF .
me. their goals are also more to do with politics than with health, or freedom.

http://www.healthfreedomrights.com/ - Health Freedom Rights

Dr. Robin Falkov - Doctor of Oriental Medicine appears to be a well meaning medical practitioner who publishes many important ideas about health freedom. However, it is clear that the site uses a few ideas related to health freedom to attract attention and sell medical services, as well as AquaSana water treatment, healing with light and Nature-Clean Ozone. No health here, only illness. Freedom for those who have a few bucks to spend.

http://www.healthfreedomexpo.com/site/ - Health Freedom Expo
March 2-4 2012 at the Long Beach Convention Centre, the Health Freedom Expo. Interesting. Very interesting. This Expo appears to bring together many people who are working for some aspects of health freedom. It is, of course, driven by marketing and products. It is an Exposition. eg. the people who present the Health Freedom Expo are not fighting for your health freedoms, they are charging people to present at and to attend their Expo. Their goal is to make money from the concept of Health Freedom.
Of course most of the presenters are providing medical alternatives, not health alternatives. If you want to see a lot of new products and ideas - this may interest you. If you want to participate in some serious discussions of health, and how health differs from illness, and health freedom - and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of healthiness, you may need to look elsewhere.

http://healthfreedoms.org/ - Health Freedom Alliance
The Health Freedom Alliance appears to be a well meaning site bringing our attention to many assaults on health freedom in the USA. However, there is no concept of health - separate from illness. How can you truly support health freedom if you cannot define health? There is no central thread. Even their post The Medical Paradigm Is Fatally Flawed - starts out with a great title, but fails to identify the correct alternative. We need a health paradigm, not a medical paradigm.

http://www.nationalhealthfreedom.org/ - National Health Freedom Action
Promoting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They messed up on the last word. Of course it should read: Everyone as a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of healthiness. http://www.personalhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/p/subject-index.html
Their mission: "To promote access to all health care information, services, treatments and products..."
Of course they mean 'medical care', thus they mean 'medical freedom'. Health freedom sounds better, but is much more challenging.

.... and so it goes...

It seems many organizations have adopted a `Health Freedom` to their name because it`s good publicity for their cause. But their cause is not Health Freedom. Virtually every so called "Heath Freedom" organization makes the same errors

1. Medical freedom is not health freedom.
2. Medicine and medical treatments are not health.
3. Hidden agendas (product sales, lower taxes, promoting specific treatments) are not health freedom.
4. Random examples of excesses against medical freedom, or freedom in general do not make a platform for health freedom.

If we are to fight for health freedom, we need to understand health.

If we are to fight for health freedom, we need to understand freedom.

It's not easy.

Personal Health Freedom is about trying to understand health. Illness and treatment is a subset of health. A very small subset. Most of the time, we are healthy. Most of the time - we could be healthier. Some of us are healthier when we are sick - than some others are when they are healthy. But health is not measured - so we don`t know. Understanding health is probably more complicated than understanding medicine. When a doctor is doing medical work - the goal is clear. Prevent, diagnose, treat or cure a specific illness. What is the goal when you are trying to understand as opposed to treating. What is the goal when you are trying to 'improve overall healthiness' instead of trying to 'minimize a specific illness'?

If we don`t understand health - we cannot recognize the chains we are carrying, much less fight them.

Personal Health Freedom is also about trying to understand freedom in the context of health. Freedom is not some simple concept that is easily understood or explained. It needs to be explored.

That's what I'm trying to do with this blog. It you want to help us all understand healthiness, drop me a note. I'd love to hear from you.

To your health, tracy
personalhealthfreedom.blogspot.com

Rights

- fadf

Healthicine: The Art and Science of Healthing

2012-02-21T03:26:00.000-08:00

Healthicine is the art and science of healthing. The study and practice of health and healthiness.

Healthing, optimizing your health, is personal first, and then extends to your communities - your family, friends and any other community of which you are a member or have an interest.

Medicine is the art and science of healing. The study and practice of treating disease. Medicine is severely restricted in our western society. It is illegal to practice medicine without a license.

Healthicine is a superset of medicine, and includes the field of medicine. Medicine is only a small part of health and healthiness.

This diagram represents the field of healthicine including the field of medicine.

Healthiness is about balance. For each essential nutrient, we must balance our intake in the healthy range. The RDA (Reference Daily Intake) and the UL (Upper Intake) are numbers identified by the FDA as points where imbalance starts to occur. If the imbalance becomes excessive - we might develop a medical condition. At which point, we may require medicine, the art and science of healing - to recover.

Your personal healthicine starts as your personal health freedoms. As we move to the borders of the healthicine range - our health becomes so unbalanced that we may require assistance to recover. And if we go farther, it is possible to tip - and break some aspect of our health - to the point where we might never recover completely.

There are thousands of balances in healthicine. The hierarchy of health provides a foundation to identify many of those balances. Balanced nutrition is one area - consisting of hundreds of essential and non-essential nutrients. We also seek a balance of healthy cells, tissues, organs and bodily systems. And also balanced healthy body, mind and spirit. And balanced, healthy communities. There are balances in things - and in processes. We need to balance our Vitamin C intake - and we also need to balance our sleep and our exercise to optimize health.

Our bodies are remarkably good at compensating for imbalances. If the right leg is weaker than the left leg, in most cases - we can still walk. A bit wobbly, but still mobile. If the right leg is broken due to excess of physical stress - we might hobble, maybe with crutches, until it heals, straight or not. If it heals crooked - our muscles can develop to compensate and help balance or at least facilitate walking.

Illness is defined where one or more of our healthicine balances tips so far - deficient or excessive, that a diagnosable medical problem arises. If this happens because of a single imbalance (a primary illness) - it might be simple to identify and treat. In may cases, our illness is the result of multiple imbalances in the healthicine (a complex or compound illness) - making it more difficult to identify causality, and more difficult to treat.

As a result of this complexity - medicine often resorts to treating symptoms. A technique that can be more expeditious and effective than trying to identify the cause of illness. Many similar illnesses can be effectively treated with similar techniques - without specific reference to the underlying cause or imbalance. For some illnesses - a broken leg is one example, examining the underlying cause is only useful for prevention of future incidents, but of little use in treatment.

There are many healthicine balances outside of the hierarchy of health.

One of the most important is exercise. Our bodies don't just exist - they move. Health is facilitated by and depends on movement and activity. A balance of exercise makes us healthier. A deficiency of exercise makes us unhealthy - as can an excess of exercise. Of course the FDA does not provide an RDA or UL for exercise - it's much more personal.

Many healthicine balances appear to NOT have a minimum, or a maximum, or the minimum or maximum is so unlikely and infrequent that it can generally be ignored.

Some healthicine balances have a very wide balance point. The healthy range of Vitamin C, according to the FDA, is from 90 mg per day (the RDA) to 2000 mg per day (the UL). An upper limit of more than 20 times larger than the minimum.

Most healthicine balances have an optimum range. One of the challenges for the science of healthiness, is to determine most important health balances and identify their optimal ranges.

Some healthicine balances are maintained by the body - in absence of daily attention. Vitamin A is stored in the liver, and you can stop consuming Vitamin A for many days without significant impact on your health. Vitamin C, on the other hand, is not stored - and it is important to maintain an adequate daily intake, or suffer health consequences.

What is the optimal intake of Vitamin C? Of protein? Of essential fats? What is the optimal amount of exercise? We don't know. What is the optimal composition of healthy blood? Healthy muscle tissue? Do we know? Is a specific health balance best attended to daily? Weekly? Monthly? Annually? Or at specific times in our lifetime?

Of course health consequences from a minor deficiency of a single nutrient, over a small period of time, are typically very small. Your body might in many cases, recover when the balance is restored. If your consumption of Vitamin C is zero for many days - you are unlikely to notice any difference. Only a few nutrients, most notably oxygen and water - can have a severe effect from small periods of absence.

We have spent centuries studying medicine, and comparatively, scant few moments on the science of healthiness. I believe some of the intractable problems of medicine arise because we are treating them with medicine - when the preventative nature of healthicine is a more appropriate approach.

It's time to look more closely, thoroughly, deeply into the art and science of health.

You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of healthiness. You have a right to healthicine.

yours in health, tracy
Personal Health Freedom

This post has been revised as of Feb 21, 2012 from the original posting of December 3, 2011.

Monsanto: how cheap food makes us all poor

2012-02-17T04:14:00.001-08:00

I've seen a lot of posts telling us how bad Monsanto is and I tend to agree with them. Here's one view of the history of Monsanto: The World According to Monsanto part 1 of 10.

However, I wanted to take a look at Monsanto from a health point of view. Monsanto supports a foundation called "Food Health and Hope" - is that their goal?

It seems like Monsanto's goal is world domination - and they are well on their way. As the saying goes, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". Monsanto has absolute power over most of our farmers. Monsanto plays a mean game of monopoly. At present, they own virtually all of the worthwhile properties (seeds). 1995-2005 Monsanto acquired over 50 seed companies. Farmers with their own seeds in the Americas are rapidly surrounded and isolated. Monsanto decides which seeds to sell - only GMO seeds. All of the farmers are issued 'go to Jail' cards as soon as they purchase a single crop. Not only that, the best pesticide for your Monsanto seeds is... you guessed it, a Monsanto pesticide. And a Monsanto weed killer. Monsanto doesn't participate in the community chest, they collect all of the taxes (they call them profits, but when there are no competitors - profits are just another name for taxes). There are no more free parking cards. They might as well own the utilities, and run the government, and they've bought up all the 'get out of jail free' cards. If a farmer goes bankrupt - can go to "Food, Health and Hope" - more likely hope and hades. The food? It's all Monsanto food. Food that insects won't eat, with extra pesticides and herbicides added for good measure.

What is the Monsanto Pledge? Is it: Food Health and Hope, as suggested in the above documentary? Nope: http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/monsanto-pledge.aspx

The Monsanto Pledge says nothing about food, nutrition, or health (that's the so called "Food Health Hope Foundation", supported by Monsanto. Monsanto's real pledge has little to say about farmers, and nothing about food consumers. Pledge: Integrity, Dialogue, Transparency, and Sharing. The more I learn about them, I think their pledge should be lies, lies, lies and lies written by lawyers, lawyers, lawyers and lawyers.

Monsanto "We will use sound and innovative science and thoughtful and effective stewardship to deliver high-quality products that are beneficial to our customers and to the environment." Their customers are 'farmers', and 'food producers'. You, the consumer, are not their customer. Sound innovative science? No. Patents, yes.

What is Monsanto all about? "Producing more, conserving more, improving lives, THAT's SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE, AND THAT'S WHAT MONSANTO IS ALL ABOUT" - taken directly from their website. Is it true?

Let's look at their corn: "For farmers today, it’s all about getting the most yield out of every acre of corn, while using as few inputs as possible. Monsanto’s corn traits help farmers do this by providing cutting-edge technology that protects the plant’s yield."

The highest quantity, with lowest input. What about quality? Of course it's high quality, but... Quality for transportation? Quality for storage? What about health? For optimal health - we need, many different types of corn. Monsanto offers four different types of corn seeds, here they are, with the first sentence of their description, taken from the Monsanto web-page:

Genuity SmartStax RIB Complete™is the industry’s first single-bag refuge solution for U.S. farmers in the Corn Belt. It provides growers with the broadest spectrum of insect control above the ground (corn earworm, fall army worm, etc) and below the ground

Genuity® VT Double PRO® RIB Complete™: The second Genuity RIB Complete product to market is a blend of 95 percent Genuity® VT Double PRO® and 5 percent refuge seed, delivering the lowest refuge in the corn-growing area* for above-ground insect protection.

Genuity® VT Double PRO®: Tailored for above-ground only insect protection, including corn earworm and fall -armyworm control.

Genuity® VT Triple PRO®: The industry’s first dual mode-of-action above-ground insect protection in corn which is stacked with below-ground insect protection and Roundup Ready 2® Technology.

All four brands of corn offered by Monsanto list 'insect protection' as their most valuable quality. Not one of the corns lists anything about the health or nutrient value of the corn produced. And of course nothing about the varieties provided because there is no variety. All four are GMO corns. Monsanto owns the patent. Presumably, Monsanto owns seeds to hundreds of different types of corn - but they don't sell them - they certainly don't market them.

None of us want corn that is damaged by insects. But... do you want corn that is so unhealthy that most insects will turn away from it, or die if they eat it? We don't want corn mixed with weed seeds. But do we want corn grown in a field that was burned to death by chemicals - while our so called 'corn' grew and matured?

Or do we want corn that is optimized for our health? Which may mean, by the way, that it is also optimized for the health of insects who also like corn? In a field that is so healthy it grows many different kinds of weeds - and complimentary crops as well.

Or do we want choices? There are over 100 different varieties of corn in Mexico. Monsanto wants to limit us to four patented corn seeds.

Why do we need choices?

If you visit the rainforest, you will see many plants that have a few small holes in their leaves. Why? Each plant produces a different insect toxin - to ensure that insects don't consume the plant. The insects have learned that the healthiest way is to eat a bit of many different plants. Because if they eat a single plant - the toxins will kill them.

It's the same with all food. Expecially food designed with specific toxins genetically built in, or applied. The same toxin, over and over - is a danger to health. A potential killer.

Monsanto wants to help the farmers produce higher yields, with lower inputs - and lower risk of insect damage. They may believe this results in lower cost food for all. With cheaper food - even the poor can afford to buy Monsanto's corn. Monsanto wants to kill all of the weeds, but not the corn - so you get cheaper corn.

Cheap food is cheap. Less expensive food does not help the poor to buy food. It only restricts the choices of those who want to pay for healthier food. It makes us all poor.

An apple a day keeps the doctor away. A different apple each day is the healthiest way.

What's the best apple? Mac? Fuji? Crabapples? Granny Smith?

There is no 'best apple', until you define your goals. The best apple for shipping? The best apple for storage? The brightest coloured apple? The best tasting apple?

The healthiest apple?

We can measure which is best for shipping and storage. We can collect opinions on the best tasting, or the brightest colour.

But we cannot find the healthiest apple. All foods contain nutrients and toxins. Which apple has the most nutrients? The most anti-oxidants? The best anti-oxidants? The fewest toxins? The least damaging toxins?

The healthiest apple, is a different apple every day - to maximize nutrient exposure and minimize toxin exposure.

For health, we not only need freedom of choice - we need variety, freedom to choose.

Which is the healthiest wheat? Which is the healthiest corn? Which is the healthiest rice? There is no healthiest. What is the healthiest? Variety! Choice!

Monsanto wants to produce the best wheat - so that all farmers will buy their wheat seeds. The best corn, so that all farmers will buy their corn seeds. The best rice - so that all farmers will buy "the best rice seeds". The best wheat, rice and corn for the farmers. Not the best for your health. They also want to produce the best pesticides. For their best wheat, rice, corn, etc. Certainly not the best for you, the consumer.

Monsanto's best corn is a single GMO corn or a few GMO corns. Patented corns. For health, we need many types of corn. The best wheat is only one wheat - we need many types of wheat for health.

Monsanto may have an important goal. By helping farmers to produce the best crops - with least cost and risk - they can lower the price of foods. Everyone will benefit, especially the poor - from lower cost food.

Or will they? Does lower cost of food mean the poor can buy food?

No. It simply means 'poorer food'. Does it make the poor people rich? No, it makes us all poor. People who can afford to buy food have only one choice. Monsanto food.

Even Monsanto's President, Vice Presidents, and Board Members can only buy Monsanto cakes, Monsanto cookies, Monsanto popcorn - with Monsanto pesticides for themselves and their families. Because Monsanto sells all the seeds, a few at a time.... Unless they move to a country where GMO foods are banned.

Monsanto's mono-culture makes our foods less diverse and less healthy. Monsonto's monopoly game is a killer. They are playing for keeps - not realizing that they are playing against everyone, even their own families.

Are GMOs dangerous? Are GMOs more toxic than other foods? Monsanto designs foods that are more toxic - of course they don't use the word toxic, they use words like 'insect protection'. By definition, GMOs are not more toxic, but in general money spent to Genetically Modify a food is only spent with the aim of monopolizing the market. Eg. limiting your personal choice.

GMO's are technically and certainly the most dangerous corn if they are the only corn available.

GMOs are designed to limit choice, to limit freedom. Is barring GMO the solution? It is only one step.

Many corporations, from MacDonald's to Colgate, to Monsanto - grow by limiting choice. They provide consistency - claiming to provide quality. They want all of the shelf space, food space, seed space - your health is not one of their objectives. Your health is your objective.

True quality means diversity and choice. Personal Health Freedom is all about choice. You cannot have choice if all you can choose is more of the same.

Are Monsanto's foods 'frankenfoods'? Toxic foods? I don't know. But I know that if your only choice is the same food every day, even the same apple every day - you will not attain optimal health - but you will attain optimal toxic levels for that apple.

No 'fake differences' not fake choices. As noted in my Toothpaste Rant post - when you have a choice of 50 different flavours of toothpaste, each of which has the same 'active ingredients', but different 'flavours' - you have no choice. You have only a false choice, but no healthy choice.

What can we do? Should we ban GMOs? Maybe we should ban seed patents? Then we might not need to ban GMOs. GMOs are a symptom of a larger problem. Our corporate culture, bent on maximizing profit, delivering the lowest price food, has no respect for healthiness. And no health goals. We don't pay for health when we pay for food. We know that most of us would rather pay for quantity than quality. So that's what we get. That's what Monsanto, and MacDonalds, and other corporations provide.

To be honest - I don't know what we can do. But I do know that we need more choices, and more freedom to choose.

Monsanto wants to limit our choice to their seeds. That's why I'm against Monsanto. I'm about Personal Health Freedom.

Monsanto is not about people - it's not even about farmers. It's not about communities - Monsanto is absolutely against any community that might oppose their goals. Monsanto is not about healthiness - it's about quantity. Monsanto is not about freedom of choice. Monsanto is about their products. About maximizing their sales and profit.

Monsanto wants to sell us cheap food, the highest quantity at the lowest price.

Cheap foods make us all poor. Rich food has many sources, many varieties. It's not necessarily expensive - but it is not cheap.

You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of healthiness. You have a right to choices.

yours in health,
tracy

What is Cancer? A new theory emerges.

2012-02-15T17:56:00.000-08:00

Last October, I wrote the post: I won't donate to a Cure for Cancer, which raised a storm of comments on Facebook. Unfortunately, most of the Facebook comments missed the point and got into an unrelated discussion - about the value of cancer fundraising organizations.

My point, in the article, was simple: I don't believe in a cure for cancer.

That concept seemed a bit hard for most people to grasp.

Now, an article by P C W Davies and C H Lineweaver, published in the journal of Physical Biology provides some interesting information, and suggests a new way of looking at cancer. This article is a very interesting read if you want some deep thoughts about cancers and how they function.

carcinogenesis is here seen as a process of de-speciation, a radical lack of differentiation back towards the ancestral proto-cell. If this is true, given the right (or wrong) conditions, normal cells may regress to a more primitive, far more individualistic cell phenotype in an attempt to survive (if not thrive) within the biochemical/bioenergetic adversities characteristic of the sickened, cancer-prone body.

Reported in GreenMedInfo: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/cancer-ancient-survival-program-unmasked .. GreenMedInfo.com is a very comprehensive site that "provides free and convenient access to the biomedical research on the therapeutic value of natural substances and modalities in disease prevention and treatment."

Green Med goes on to suggest that our conventional cancer treatments may actually force cancerous cells to become more 'primitive', resulting in a more tenacious cancer.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I believe, and I believe it is supported by the research paper, that cancer is caused by poor or unhealthy biological terrain.

"Biological terrain" is the matter in your body that does not consist of live cells. It consists of dead cells, and other soil like materials. The study of biological terrain is in its infancy - and has never been taken seriously by medical science since . At present, Wikipedia says:

"The biological terrain assessment or BTA is a set of tests used to measure the pH, resistivity, and redox of a person's urine, blood, and saliva. The usefulness of the test is debatable. It is often associated with homeopathy and holistic health."

The above tests are pretty basic and tell only a very small amount about the health of your biological terrain. You might compare them to taking someone's pulse, blood pressure, respiration rate and body temperature. Useful to tell if someone has serious health problems - but not at all useful to take any positive actions, unless there is an emergency situation. There is much more to biological terrain - most of which is not studied by the medical community - even when they are studying it.

Much of the research on cancer has suggested that cancerous cells are 'genetically damaged' cells that grow uncontrollably. This research paper suggests a reverse concept - that cancer cells are not damaged to create new, uncontrollable cells, rather they are cells that revert to a 'pre-animal' state when stressed by their biological terrain, although the authors never actually use the words 'biological terrain'.

Many cancers might develop or grow as a result of unhealthy terrain, AKA 'bad soil' - the stuff between cells, and the nutrients that our cells consume. Every day our body grows new cells - and if the body is toxic, we cannot grow healthy new cells. If cancer cells develop, an unhealthy biological terrain will help them to flourish. This new research suggests that cancers develop from unhealthy terrain, where cells are forced to revert to genetic programs of more primitive times in order to survive.

Fighting this type of cancer with chemotherapy ignores the real problem and fights the symptoms (the cancerous cells) instead. Treating the symptoms, not the cause. If the cause of cancer is poor quality of the patient's biological terrain - then chemotherapy and radiation can only makes it worse - because they make the biological terrain less healthy. No wonder we worry that cancers might spread, or 'recur' - if our cancer therapies create an environment that produces cancerous cells.

Unfortunately, the authors of the article, P C W Davies and C H Lineweaver, do not appear to recognize biological terrain either - even though their article talks indirectly about the terrain, they never use the word. They say: "The genetic or epigenetic mutations that open up access to pre-existing adaptations can be caused by chronic inﬂammation, viral infections or other environmental causes" describing the biological terrain, without using the words biological terrain. They also state and give a reference to support, that cancer's preferred habitat is low PH, again without reference to the word biological terrain.

They go on to suggest that their research might give us 'new ways to fight cancerous cells'. And they may be well on the way to some revolutionary new concepts in the battle against cancer once it develops.

But they ignore the opportunities to stop cancers before the develop, by creating health and more healthy terrain in our bodies.

I believe that when we can measure the healthiness of someone's flesh, or biological terrain, then we can:

a) clearly establish what illnesses arise from different levels of healthiness or unhealthiness in the terrain
b) develop, test and study ways to make the terrain more healthy
c) treat illnesses that are triggered or encouraged by unhealthy terrain
d) truly prevent those illnesses, by detecting and correcting poor terrain health before the illness arises.

Our medical sciences treat our bodies like a farmer who never checks his soil - only tries to change the seed, fertilizer and pesticide. And wonders why his crop fails again and again.

This report may be a huge step forward in the understanding of cancers. Time will tell. But we need a lot more work to prevent cancers. With cancer - I believe understanding and prevention will prove much more powerful than a cure.

That's why I don't believe in the search for a cure - it diverts our attention from the real solutions. But of course, if I was diagnosed with cancer tomorrow - I would be searching for a cure.

to your health, tracy
http://personalhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/p/subject-index.html

Healthy Spirituality vs Broken Spirits, Broken Hearts and Shattered Egos

2012-02-04T09:01:00.000-08:00

A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones. Proverbs 17:22.

How big is the difference between a broken heart, a broken spirit and a crushed ego? From the health perspective - what is 'Spirit'? What is spirituality? How can we recognize or measure the healthiness of someone's spirit?

In the Hierarchy of Healthiness the body is defined by its physical presence. The mind houses the rational processes we use to plan and execute specific actions; calculation, memory and possibly intuition. Each new level requires the levels below - but rises above them all to create a distinct new entity. The body exists, by itself, above the structures of your organs, systems, tissues, cells, etc.

Your spirit exists above the physical mind and the body. The body might be damaged, the mind might be stressed - while the spirit prevails. Or your spirit might be crushed while the body carries on like an automaton.

The Hierarchy of Health 'Spirit', consists of your spirit, your spirituality, your ego and your personality. Your creative and artistic spirit. Your 'heart', as in 'a broken heart', and also as in 'you've gotta have heart', is part of your spirit, not part of your body.

Communal aspects of spirituality are in the next layer of the hierarchy: team spirit, community spirit, etc. are in the layer Community Healthiness.

When does our spirit develop? Do adult dogs have 'spirit'? I suspect the answer is yes, but they do not have 'spirituality'. Dogs can be playful, bordering on creativity. They may have spirituality in the sense of being comfortable their place in life, but not in 'knowing their purpose', nor 'understanding the meaning of life'.

Spirit healthiness is a measurement of the health status of a person's spirit and spirituality.

Can we measure the health status of someone's spirit? of their spirituality?

Physical strength is measured by what we can carry; spiritual by what we can bear. An interesting quotation, source unknown, that deserves further thought. Sometimes we can hardly bear to listen to, much less enjoy, the noise of children - other times the roar of traffic is easily ignored. Our spirit strength waxes and wanes as do our physical and mental strengths.

How can we tell if someone has an unhealthy spirit?

Playfulness; creativity; artistic is an interesting dimension. Many great works of art are created by people with troubled spirits. But many are created by people who are spiritually comfortable - and have time to relax and explore their artist spirits. When very creative people have troubled spirits - they might channel their energies into their art. Sometimes people may channel their troubled spirits into risk and destruction, or self harm. Suicide might not exist if we didn't have a spirit to be troubled.

Music can sooth the spirit. Or lift your spirits. Even sad music can make you feel better - as discussed in a previous post: Is Listening to the Blues Healthy? Great music might be created by a contented spirit, a forlorn spirit, or a troubled spirit - and it can be enjoyed by all.

The Spirituality Index of Well-Being: A New Instrument for Health-Related Quality-of-Life Research
was presented by Timothy P. Daaleman, DO1 and Bruce B. Frey, PhD2 in 2002. The survey asks:
Which statement best describes your feelings and choices?
Strongly Agree 1 Agree 2 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree 5
1. There is not much I can do to help myself.
2. Often, there is no way I can complete what I have started.
3. I can’t begin to understand my problems.
4. I am overwhelmed when I have personal difficulties and problems.
5. I don’t know how to begin to solve my problems.
6. There is not much I can do to make a difference in my life.
7. I haven’t found my life’s purpose yet.
8. I don’t know who I am, where I came from, or where I am going.
9. I have a lack of purpose in my life.
10. In this world, I don’t know where I fit in.
11. I am far from understanding the meaning of life.
12. There is a great void in my life at this time.

Questions 1 to 6 are primarily about 'spirit', although 4 and 5 are also about the ego. Questions numbered 7 to 12 are about spirituality. Questions 7 and 9 are almost the same question.

The test is a powerful tool to measure spirit and spirituality of people who are ill. It gives a useful number for a measurement of spiritual health. The two sets of questions can give separate numbers to rate spirit separate from spirituality. It is not a tool to measure ego healthiness - as there are no direct questions to the ego. I do wonder if it is possible to distinguish between a healthy and an unhealthy ego, especially by asking questions of the subject.

The weakness of this test - for measuring healthiness - is clear when we realize that all of the questions are negative. This measurement instrument was, like most so-called 'health measurements' developed in a clinical setting to measure the spirituality of people who are ill. In fact it does not measure 'spirtual well being', rather each question measures 'spiritual weakness' (or illness), with the assumption that the opposite of illness is wellness.

The measurement of spirituality is made more complex by the presence of an objective, v.s. the subjective observer. Someone might rate themselves very highly, or very low, on these scales - but their family, or their physician might give them a different rating. Physical attributes like blood pressure and pulse can be measured accurately by a machine. Attributes of spirituality are much more difficult to measure objectively.

There is also the ego. Many religions and philosophies suggest that the ego is opposed to the true spirit and to spirituality. eg. To become truly spiritual you must lose a large part of your ego. Someone with a forceful ego might rate their spiritual healthiness much higher than someone with a healthy self image and ego.

Does spirituality arise from having a purpose in life? from understanding the meaning of life? from feeling 'complete' in our lives? Or is there something more to spirituality?

Can you improve your spirit health? The things you do to improve your spirit healthiness might depend... Are you relatively healthy in mind, body and spirit - and you want to improve your spiritual health? In this situation, the recommended prescription is often solitude, quiet, fasting, meditation, etc. But if you are ill and you have a poor spirit, a more effective prescription might be involvement in family activities, yes - noise of children, and food - preferably with family or friends. This suggests that measuring the healthiness of our spirit is not effective in isolation from other aspects of health.

At what age do we begin to develop the spirituality aspect of our spirit?

Loevinger's stages of ego development traces development from birth (pre-ego) to the rarely attained 9th integrated ego stage, where the subject is at peace with inner conflicts. Erikson's stages of psychosocial development trace through stages of hope, will, purpose, competence, identity, love, care to wisdom. Carl Jung classified Psychological Types into eight categories by first classifying perception into sensation vs. intuition, judging into thinking and feeling - and then mapping them against introvert and extrovert mental types. Note: Jung does not pass judgement, classifying one category over another he simply groups people into different categories based on some aspects of their spirit.

We might look at each of the classification criteria and measure it on a scale of deficient - normal - excessive. For example an introvert might be normal, or so introverted as to be a hermit, or hardly introverted at all. Of course introvert deficiency is not a negative, but excessive introversion might be a health problem.

How can we measure spirit healthiness?

First, we can enumerate some attributes of the spirit for measurement. The 12 questions from Daaleman and Frey provide some suggestions. Each question measures some aspect of the spirit. However, as noted - they are worded to measure only 'negative' aspects of the spirit. |

Illness arises from deficiency or excess. Healthiness is the large or small 'normal' area between deficiency and excess. If we re-word the concepts of these questions into a scale that measures deficiency and excess, we have something like:

1. Ability to look after self. Deficient - not able to look after self. Normal - able to look after self most of the time. Excessive - not able to ask for or accept assistance when required.
2. Ability to complete tasks. Deficient - not able to complete most task that are started (may indicate tendency to start too many tasks or tasks that are too challenging). Normal - normally able to complete tasks that are started. Excessive - never takes on challenges that present risk of failure.
3. Able to understand own problems. Deficient - not able to understand own problems. Normal - has a normal understanding of own problems. Excessive - understands everything about themselves (or claims to).
4. Dealing with personal difficulties and challenges. Overwhelmed - normal - denial.
5. Confident when new problems encountered. Unsure, indecisive - normal - overconfident.
6. Able to plan for the future. Impulsive - normal - anal retentive.
7. Comfortable with role in life. Unhappy - normal - lazy.
8. Know thyself. Confused about self - normal - arrogance or excessive pride.
9. Have a purpose in life. Lost - normal - driven.
10. Know place in society. Submissive - normal - defiant.
11. Understand the meaning of life. childlike - normal - philosopher
12. Feel complete and whole. insecure - normal - complacent

I'm not saying these are the best questions to measure spirituality healthiness. At this time they may be the best we have. We can work on something better. What are the most important dimensions of spirituality? Are some more important than others?

There might always be disagreement about what the spirit is, and what is not part of the spirit. In the context of the Hierarchy of Healthiness we can define spirit clearly for specific purposes. Spirit Healthiness encompasses all of the aspects of people that are at a higher level than the body and mind - and at a lower level than those attributed to communities of people. Introversion, intuition, purpose, understanding, compassion - these are all aspects of the spirit. Each can be healthy - in the normal range - or not. If we can attain that goal, we might attempt to 'optimize' spirit health - a much more challenging goal.

Our spirit healthiness scores can change over time as we mature, grow older and age - and as a result of life circumstances.

Keep your spirits up, tracy
www.personalhealthfreedom.com

I water down my Coke. Is it OK to drink bottled water?

2012-01-31T11:58:00.000-08:00

I buy bottled water. I drink bottle water. I've heard all the theories about bottled water is bad for me, bad for the environment.... I should drink tap water.

Truth be told, I have no idea what the truth is. Let's check some commonly expressed opinions.
1. Bottled water is not good value. Tap water is cheaper.
2. It's no healthier than tap water.
3. Water is being bought up by corporations and changed to a commodity.
4. Bottled water isn't 'green'.

But wait, there's more... There are the poison plastic reasons:
1. Plastic water bottles can release hormone like chemicals when they are heated. If the bottle sits in a hot car, for example.
2. Plastic bottle in the environment last hundreds or thousands of years.
... and so on...

But what's the reality? Is it bad to choose bottled water?

Bottled water is a health choice. First of all, let's understand that most, probably all health choices have positive and negative aspects. I'm in favour of health freedom, freedom to make personal choices. Bottled water can also be a healthy choice.

I also think it is important to look at the choice, the decision, not just the perceived BAD 'bottled water'. Let's look more closely at the choice. Here's the choice I encounter often.

I am thirsty. I want something to drink in my car, on my bike, on my walk, etc... There is no fountain or tap nearby. But there is a gas station, a small store - or a large store. I want something that I can carry with me, sip slowly, rather than gulping a lot at one time.

I can choose bottled Coca Cola, bottled Pepsi, Sprite or 7-UP. Or I might choose bottled orange juice, or an energy drink. Or bottled water.

What's the healthiest choice? Bottled water.

When we check the list of objections to bottled water - they all apply to Coca Cola, to Pepsi, to bottled juices. But all of those other choices have more negatives. Coke, Pepsi, Sprite, and 7-UP all have high sugar content, definitely a health negative. The diet versions might actually be worse - virutally all of the sugar substitutes used in pop are poorly tested, potentially dangerous chemicals. Juices are generally high in sugar or non-organic sugar substitutes. Even 100 percent Orange Juice is not real Orange Juice - it is a highly processed juice to ensure a long shelf life. As far as I know, there has been very little study of the health effects of processed OJ. Choose milk? Commercially available milk is highly processed, often supplemented with many other chemicals - and possibly taken from antibiotic dosed, hormone injected cows. I can buy flavoured water - but when I think about it - I find myself reading the list of ingredients -and moving over to choose bottled water again.

The healthy choice is bottled water.

You might hear comments like 'why is water the same price as Cola, it's just water?' I, on the other hand, wonder why they don't charge MORE for bottled water. It is the healthiest choice - maybe it should be more expensive?

Which is healthier for the environment? All choices seem to have the same effect on the environment. So why is it OK to buy Coke, but NOT OK to buy bottled water?

The final nail. I have heard it said that, if I want bottled water - I should get some bottles and take tap water with me instead of buying bottled water. It's a good suggestion some of the time - and I do it some of the time. Maybe you've done the same?

But did you notice? I certainly did - that tap water does not do well in plastic bottles. What's up with that? When I put tap water in a plastic bottle, and leave it in my car for a few days - it develops a strange smell. It goes 'skunky'. But I can open a commercial bottle of water and sip it over several days without any strange smells. I don't know what's happening there - but it reinforces my decision.

Bottled water is a healthy choice. When I can, I drink tap water. I'm not happy that tap water in my city, and in many cities, contains fluoride. I travel to many countries - and I sometimes drink tap water. When I need a bottle of water - I make that choice, over other, less healthy, drinks. Sometimes, I drink Coca Cola, or Pepsi. I like the taste, but it's too sweet for me, so I tend to water them down - with tap water of course.

Yours in health, tracy
www.personalhealthfreedom.com

Genetic Healthiness

2012-01-29T04:34:00.000-08:00

If you want to live a long, healthy life - choose your parents well.

How can we tell if we have healthy genes? Can we measure the health of our genes? Can we affect our healthiness through choices related to our genes?

You have probably seen reports of diseases that are caused by genetic defects, or genetic tendencies towards disease.

A Search for the Healthy Genes, an article from Wired magazine, suggests that maybe we should search for, in the words of Maynard Olsen "mutated genes that make people healthier."

What is healthier? Should we search for genes that 'make people healthier'? Or search for genes that make us healthy. Maynard goes on with an important observation:

"This is what physicians have always done: find sick people and find out why they're sick," he said. "It can't be emphasized enough how embedded that (mindset) is. "Studying healthy people is an essentially unexplored approach, and healthy genes are probably plentiful."

The field of genetic health is virtually unexplored in humans. We have some research into genetic illness, and genetic dispositions for illness, but virtually no research into healthiness genes.

We do know some complexities. Many genetic factors that we know about can be good and bad. Is there a word for something that is good and bad? The genetic tendency for sickle cell anaemia, for example protects against malaria, but when the gene occurs twice, it cause the disease sickle cell anaemia.

Many genetic factors are good for some aspects of health - and not good for other aspects.

When we look at the other layers in the hierarchy of health - it gets more complex. How do our genes affect our nutritional health? How do they affect our cellular health, our tissue health, our organ health, system health, body health, mind health, spirit health and community healthiness?

We do know some simple things - most adult Asians, for example, are lactose intolerant. Is lactose intolerance healthy? or unhealthy? It's not that simple. People who are lactose intolerant as adults should not consume milk. Most adult mammals are lactose intolerant, presumably an adaptation to ensure that the young animals get the milk. We humans have adapted and take milk from cows (sheep, goats, etc.), so milk shortage is not an issue. As a result, some humans can consume milk as adults. This might be a healthy adaptation - but it's moot. If you are, or are not - you can't choose lactose tolerance. You can only choose to drink, or not to drink milk. Or maybe you can. Genes are 'activated'. The gene for lactose intolerance appears to be activated by weaning - up to that time, it is dormant. Maybe if Asians don't stop drinking milk - then won't become lactose intolerant? Maybe we have more genetic choices than think.

Each of us is an alphabet soup of genetics, with random genes chosen from each of our parents, and random (or not) genes activated by our environments. Genes can be activated, modulated or silenced.

Genetics and Nutritional Health: How do our genes affect our nutrition? How does the activation of our genes affect our nutrition? Can we learn about our individual genetics to improve our personal nutrition health? For example, we can find people proposing a "body type diet", a 'blood type diet", "nutritional typing". Is there any scientific research to support any of these dietary approaches? If so, can these diets be linked to genetic factors? Do our nutritional needs change as genes are activated and modulated?

Genetics and Cellular Health: do genes affect the health of our cells? In fact, the activation of genes determines what types of cells develop in each part of our body. Can we choose to influence these genes? Scientists are starting to learn. Sickle cell anaemia is a direct link from genetics to cells.

There is another important genetic component of cellular health. Many of the functioning cells in our bodies are foreign. Our mouth, stomach, intestines and bowels have a very active group of healthy foreign cells to aid our digestion. It is estimated that the average healthy person harbours 500 different species of healthy bacteria cells. What do we know about the genetics of the healthy bacteria we harbour? And what about the unhealthy bacteria? Are some bacteria healthy sometimes - and unhealthy in other situations?

Genetics and Tissue Health: is the health of our muscular tissues, our connective tissues, other tissues affected by our genes and by our genetic healthiness - the activation of our genes? There are, for example, connective tissue illnesses that are linked to genetics. How about connective tissue healthiness that is linked to genetics? How much control might we have over this aspect or our health as we learn to understand genetic healthiness?

Genetics and Organ Health: can we influence the health of our organs by making decisions about our genetics? As we move through the Hierarchy of Health it becomes apparent that our current studies of health and healthiness are very shallow. Will we learn to regenerate damaged organs through studies of genetic healthiness?

Genetics and Body Health: We tend to think of diet and exercise as the ways to improve the health of our bodies. Those are the easiest to control directly and see positive or negative results. What types of exercise, for example are best for your body? Can clues be found in your genetics? What diets are best for your body? What clues lie in your genes?

Genetics and Mind Health: do your genes make your mind more active? Less active? More fragile? Less fragile? More prone to illness? Less prone to illness? than someone else's genes? Studies of twins suggest that tendencies to be introverted, or extroverted are linked to genetics. Is it healthier to be introverted? Or Extroverted? Probably neither is healthier - but it may help us improve our health, or take healthier actions if we understand our genetic mind tendencies.

Genetics and Spiritual Health: It is interesting that the Catholic church expects priests to not have children. If the spirituality in the priest is not passed to a child - does the Catholic religion tend to 'breed out' spirituality? Spirituality and spiritual healthiness is very poorly understood. We do not have any effective way to measure spiritual health - certainly not a way that would be accepted by all religions. If we cannot measure spiritual healthiness - how can we expect to improve it? Is genetics linked to spiritual health?

Genetics and Community Health: An interesting concept. Is community health learned? Or genetic? We can understand that community health of bees, wasps and ants is a result of their unique genetics. What about people? Measurement of community health is also a challenge we have not attempted to study. We have many measures of the illnesses - but not the health -- of individuals in different communities. Is that community health? We need distinct measurements to determine and compare the health of different communities. Once we learn to effectively measure the health of communities - we will be able to start the analysis of how genetics and gene activation of individuals affect the health of the community.

I'm not suggesting we try to change the world by controlling genetics through controlled reproduction. The concepts of eugenics directly conflict with the goals of this blog - Personal Health Freedom.

We need to study genetics from a health point of view. And health from a genetics point of view. At present, most 'scientific studies' of genetics seem to be done by drug companies, looking for ways to cure illness.

We need to find ways to find and to create healthiness in and through our genes.

To your health, tracy
www.personalhealthfreedom.com

Hans Rosling: Beautiful Statistics about Communities, Health and Money

2012-01-22T05:41:00.000-08:00

Hans Rosling speaks elegantly about the health of communities (countries) and how it has changed over the last century - with some predictions into the future. He gives us a 'grandmother' view of statistics in a most interesting presentaiton and finishes by demonstrating that the seemingly impossible is possible.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html

Hans demonstrates over and over that the richest people are not the healthiest people.

You can see an earlier presentation, somewhat of a foundation for this one, here: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html
where he demonstrates that the problem with his students is not ignorance - it is pre-concieved ideas about 'we' and 'them'. The graphic presentation of statistics is the best I have ever seen.

yours in health, tracy
www.personalhealthfreedom.com

Are you Sick? Or just Unhealthy?

2012-01-20T06:29:00.000-08:00

Mike goes to the doctor with a cough. Is he sick? Or just unhealthy?

The doctor asks how many cigarettes Mike smokes - a pack a day, for 25 years. Is Mike sick? Or just unhealthy?

It's not easy to tell if someone is sick, or just unhealthy. Even in Mike's situation. If the cough just came on in the past few days, and there are other symptoms - Mike is probably sick. But if the cough is a nagging cough that has been present and growing, Mike is probably 'just unhealthy'.

Mike's case is a simple one. It can get much more complicated. Let's look again at Alice and Zizi. You might remember that Alice and Zizi are the same age, similar in many ways, but Alice gets 5 to 7 colds a year, whereas Zizi gets a cold once every 1 or 2 years. Now, Alice develops a cough. Is she sick? Or just unhealthy? It might be difficult to tell. Alice might have a cough because she ate something that caused her to cough,, or because she is in the final stages of a cold. Presumably, if she is in the final stages of 'another' cold, then she has a cough because she is unhealthy - compared to Zizi - and because she is sick with a cold.

What is unhealthiness? Is there a difference between unhealthiness and sickness.

Merriam-Webster defines unhealthy as "not in good health : sickly, diseased".

People tend to use the words sickness, illness and disease interchangeably. Medical condition is sometimes used for special illnesses like a bone fracture, or bullet puncture - but, medical condition can also be used to name all variations of sickness, illness, disease and medical condition.

In our studies of health and healthiness, it is important to have a clearly defined meaning for unhealthiness. Health has been defined as: a measure of the state of wellness of a person, or community. Health can be seen as a measure, between 0 and 100 percent, that defines the state of wellness. It is clear than that un-health should be the other percentage, the state of unwellness.

For example, if your health score is 80 precent, which might be a higher than average score, then your unhealthiness would be 100 - 80, or 20 percent unhealthiness.

We tend to think of unhealthiness is a condition that is within personal control. This includes:

- poor nutrition

- poor cleanliness

- laziness (insufficient exercise, insufficient mental stress, etc.)

Where is the line between unhealthiness and illness? When does unhealthiness become a medical condition? What does it mean when unhealthiness becomes a medical condition?

This diagram shows a transition from healthiness to unhealthiness to medical condition. The black line represents the point of diagnosable illness.

If you are simply 'unhealthy' by one of many measurements, you can change. An unhealthy diet can be changed, improved and eventually become a healthy diet. Of course you can never be 100 percent healthy. If you are ill, you might be able to increase your level of health - and become not ill - depending on the illness.

So can someone be 'unhealthy'? In light of this information, it's difficult to define a specific line where unhealthiness begins. We have no statistics on the health of 'normal people' so we can hardly define those who are 'unhealthy'. But of course it gets more complicated.

The hierarchy of healthiness has 10 layers of health, from genetics to community health.

In each layer, we have a health score and, by subtracting the health score from 100, we can calculate an unhealthiness score for that area.

In this example, we can see a Community unhealthiness of 18, a Spirit unhealthiness of 22, etc to a Nutrient unhealthiness score of 32 and Genetic unhealthiness of 22. The overall unhealthiness score is 100-78 = 22.

Is healthiness, or unhealthiness is some areas more important than in other areas? Should some illnesses be classified as 'unhealthiness' instead of illness? Will that help us to determine the best actions?

When we learn to measure healthiness effectively, we will also learn to measure unhealthiness. And then we will have a better understanding of the choices we can make with regards to both our healthiness and our illnesses.

Illness (sickness)
- can be diagnosed
- often the result of external conditions (virus, germs, etc)
- often a temporary condition (time heals all wounds)
- may require treatment

Unhealthiness
- a result of long term health actions or inactions
- not a temporary condition - will not change without changes in activities
- generally not affected by 'treatments' or medicines

We treat illness directly, and we treat unhealthiness indirectly, by healthy actions, for the most effective results.

It is important to ask ourselves, are we sick? Or just unhealthy?

to your health, tracy
www.personalhealthfreedom.com

Don't Like Analysis

2012-01-17T08:08:00.000-08:00

Are people who "don't like" more healthy, or less, healthy?

I often see reports like: people who drink red wine are less likely to have heart attacks; people who smoke are more likely to develop lung cancer; people who drink green tea have fewer cancers. Sometimes it seems like everything is bad for you - unless someone is selling it, in which case everything is good for you.

It can't possibly get more complicated - or can it?

I often meet people who "don't like" specific foods. Some people "can't eat" specific foods, saying "I'm allergic to...".

Green peppers are perhaps the most famous - because people who don't like the taste of them 'really don't like them a lot'. There are lots of theories about green peppers. I like them, and I have my own theory about why people don't like them.

Green peppers can cause people to burp - because the skin is harder to digest. And when you burp - you taste and smell the food that caused the discomfort - so you learn that green peppers cause digestive problems. This is a natural defense to keep us from eating foods that are toxic. Burping after you eat any new food can lead to a dislike that is hard to shake. Green peppers are often used in pizza - and I can see another source of dislike. Pizza is not a very safe food, prone to food poisoning if you are not careful. If you get food poisoning from pizza, you might burp - you might throw up. And which of the ingredients will you remember? I'm betting it's the green pepper. It is easy to learn to dislike the taste of green pepper.

Beer is one of the least famous. Many people don't like the taste of beer, especially people in their late teens to mid-twenties. But many people who don't like the taste of beer 'like to drink' beer so cold that the taste disappears. I like the taste of beer, so I don't like cold beer - it has no taste.

Our diets change over time, often without our awareness. We can learn to like things that we don't like. And we can learn to dislike things that we do like. When we are children, our likes and dislikes are often created by comments from parents or siblings - who might say things like "YUCK, how can you eat that?". I know several people who's fathers served in the war - and learned to hate mutton. So the children learned a dislike for the taste of lamb. Over time, each of us develops a unique "Don't Like" profile.

As I encounter people who don't like certain foods, or who cannot eat certain foods because of allergies - I sometimes wonder if anyone has studied Don't Likes and related them to illness. What if we created a field of study called "Don't Like Analysis"?

Are people who don't like green peppers more likely to develop certain illnesses?

Are people who have a lot of Don't Likes healthier, or less healthy than people who have few dislikes?

Are there clusters of people who don't like groups of foods? How does the health of these people compare to people who do like most foods in that group?

Do our tastes change, or mature over time? It seems that young people don't like red wine, or olives. But as we grow older our taste changes - and we might learn to love both. Does this happen for all foods, or just some foods?

I like the taste of lobster, but it seems that, about 50 percent of the time, if I eat lobster - I break out in a serious case of hives the next day. It generally lasts less than 8 hours, but is very uncomfortable. So, I don't eat lobster - even though I like the taste. I can't be sure if it will get better or worse. Once I had a similar experience from trout - which I also love. I assumed the trout may have been processed over a table that also processed lobster. I've enjoyed trout many times since then without incident. It would have been easy to decide that I shouldn't eat trout.

Now that I've started to think about it... I suspect there have been few health, or illness, studies on what people like to eat. It's difficult to measure what people actually eat and then study their health. It might be easier to ask them what foods and drinks they really like - and then analyze their health and illness for correlations.

Which goes to show - we don't know much about health. There are many more questions than answers. It reminds me of a quote that a co-worker kept over her desk:

We have not succeeded in answering all our problems. The answers we have found only serve to raise a whole set of new questions. In some ways we feel we are as confused as ever, but we believe we are confused on a higher level and about more important things.

We are confused about health. There seem to be more questions than answers. Each answer seems to raise a whole new set of questions. We are getting more and more confused.

But our confusion about health seems to be very erratic. We are not asking questions, and finding answers that raise our confusion to a higher level. We are jumping from one answer to another. From one confusion to another. Red wine is good. Alcohol is bad.

We are not creating a foundation of knowledge, we are not "confused at a higher level and about more important things".

If we ar to raise our knowledge of health to a higher level, we need to study and understand the hierarchy of health. We need to learn to measure health in each of the layers, and each of the components of health - separately from illness. When we learn to measure health, we can learn which health measurements are most useful. Today we only study the usefulness of illness measurements.

When we learn which health measurements are most useful, most indicative of overall health status - we will have answered questions that raise our knowledge to a higher level. Then we can ask questions about "what people don't like", and measure the results - relating them directly to health.

Maybe someday we will find health practitioners with this quote variation over their desk:

We have not succeeded in answering all health questions. The answers we have found only serve to raise a whole set of new questions. In some ways we feel we are as confused as ever, but we believe we are confused on a higher level and about more important things.

I want to be confused about health - at a higher level, and about more important things.

yours in health,
tracy

Health Help ! ! ! ! Phase Two: Community

2012-01-05T07:44:00.000-08:00

January 2012 is time for a new start. This blog has progressed slowly but steadily over the past few years, growing from an idea, to a concept - to a solid foundation for the understanding of health and freedoms. It's time to go to the next level. First, let's review where we are.

We have:

1. A declaration of the right to Personal Health Freedom - Everyone has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of healthiness.

2. Definitions of health and healthiness, that are useful and can be measured. Health is a measure of the states of wellness of a person, or community. Healthiness is a specific incidence, or measurement, of health. Overall health is a summary of a set of measurements of healthiness.

3. A comprehensive hierarchy of health from genetics, through nutrition, cells, tissues, organs, systems, body, mind, spirit and community, that facilitates study of specific primary layers, and secondary studies of how layers integrate.

4. A clear summary of the causes of illness - specific deficiencies or excesses and a definition of Primary Illness - an illness that has a single cause.

Where to go next?

The foundation is solid and might lead us in many directions. We can analyze further, although it may lead to more questions than answers - hopefully the questions raised are more important than the questions we face today.

Answers, according to John Ralston Saul, are simply "a mechanism for avoiding questions". One of the missions of my blog is to find some of the questions that no-one asks about health. It's too easy to ask questions about illness, and so hard to find the right questions about health. I expect that as we propose and find answers - they will lead us to more important questions as well.

I believe it is time to build a community of healthiness and the study of healthiness. Maybe to find a community of healthiness. Does one exist today? Do several exist? Do they know they exist?

What do you know about health? What are your most important illness questions? For most of us, that's easy.

What are your most important health questions?

That's more difficult. Is it possible to think about and discuss health without referring to illness? Is it possible to find a health website that does not, in actual fact, look for solutions to illness rather than ways to improve health?

What books do you think give the best health information?

What websites give health information, not just medical or illness information?

Where can we find health?

I'm looking for your input, your questions and your opinions so that we can all learn together. My aim is to provide a list of book reviews, website reviews, etc from a health perspective. Send me your suggestions, ideas, etc.

Together we can build a community of health.

yours in health, tracy
www.personalhealthfreedom.com

The Arts of Healthiness

2011-12-30T07:27:00.000-08:00

Some people think I am against conventional medicines and techniques, and in favour of alternative medicines and techniques. Not.

I am student of science, and of the arts. I believe in a scientific and an artistic approach to the studies of healthiness.

This diagram on our planet represents the layers of our healthiness, from our genetics to the highest levels of our communities. Each body is comprised of the layers of the hierarchy of health; genetics, nutrients, cells, etc to the entire body. Each person is more than their body, having a spirit and existing in many communities. Each of the layers is hierarchical, built on the layers below. Each layer is greater than the sum of the parts below. All health is connected. Each layer can have an effect, positive or negative, on the health of layers above or below.

Illness is represented by red spots. Illness is isolated by its causes, although can affect all health areas. Illness might exist in a single layer, or cross layers.

Healthiness is larger than illness and disease. Health is about the whole being, and includes illnesses. We all have some illness. Illness can exist in a single layer, be caused by a single factor, or may exist in many layers and might be caused by many interacting factors.

Our medical systems are very sophisticated, with surgical precision, not just in surgery, and scientific rigor. They are designed to search for illness, to identify illnesses, and to search for causes of illness and for treatments.

But they don't search for health. Strange? or normal? Health is all around, but we don't see it. We are so busy looking for illness - that we can't see health for disease. We don't search for causes of healthiness. The tools we use to measure illness are very sophisticated. We can use MRI to peer into the body and spot tumors before the cause any problems. We have standardized tests for blood and tissues to search for signs of illness. The tools we use to measure healthiness are very rudimentary. This is because our understanding of health is very rudimentary. It is also because the search for illness facilitates and forces a focus of attention. If we are searching for cancer, we can look for spots that look like cancer. We focus our attention on those spots.

In the diagram above, you can search for illness in the red spots. Of course illness in your body is not hi-lighted in red, but it stands out from the norm. Our scientific processes search for something that is 'not normal' when we search for illness.

If you are searching for health, in the diagram above - where will you look? Health is everywhere. Even in the places where there is illness. It is everywhere, and nowhere to be found. Because we assume that 'normal' is healthy - we neglect to measure healthiness. Each state of healthiness has a range that can be measured and should be measured to facilitate healthy targets.

We need to develop powerful scientific tools to understand and measure health. And when we do - we will gain a much better understanding of illness.

There is a potential danger in our search for health. The fields of illness, diagnosis, treatment, etc. have been doctopolized (doctor monopolized) by our medical systems. It is illegal for a non-doctor to diagnose illness, to design, implement, produce or sell treatments, or in any way to 'practice medicine'. This monopoly is created and upheld on the theory that it minimizes risk to patients. But it has been extended so far that it increases risk for some patients.

In our studies of health - we must not make this same mistake. We must make it better, not worse. My blog is about health freedom. I believe in medical freedom as well. Illness is a subset of health. Medicine is a subset of healthicine.

We need an open investigation of health and healthiness to understand and improve individual health and health of our communities. We need to apply our science to learn about health. But not just science. One of the problems with our medical systems is 'over scientification'. A reliance on science's ability to separate right from wrong. To avoid the wide grey areas we don't understand. Health exists in the areas we don't understand. Our reliance on 'clinical studies' of illness and treatment has been extended so far that it is no longer science. Medical science has become dogma, not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from or challenged - even when it is clearly deficient or incorrect.

We need to develop a science of health and healthiness. And we need to go beyond that. Science gives us techniques and tools of measurement. Science gives us frameworks to understand and to develop further understandings. But the structure of science limits the boundaries of a search. Science focuses our attention, but limits our view. We don't want to limit the boundaries of our search for healthiness.

We need to study and explore the arts of health. Individually and collectively.

Science might, someday, tell us what nutrients are essential to health, and what amounts of each are optimal. But nutrients compliment and conflict with each other. We need people to create and develop foods, meals, diets and supplements that help us to consume healthy nutrients in a healthy fashion. Then we can use science to measure the results.

Artists are the people who create things.

There are many arts of health. Music creation, expression, collaboration, and enjoyment are arts of healthiness. When we are ill, music helps us heal. When we are well, music makes us better. When we sing, we feel. Dance is the art of movement - the art of body health. When we create our own dance, we improve our own health. When we dance, we heal. All movement is dance, the dance of life. The creation of dance takes our health to a higher plane. Drawing, painting, designing, writing -- creating; creating is art. Creating is healthy. We need to move our communities from consumption to creation. To move our focus from productivity to creativity. From commerce to arts. For the health of it.

When we create, we are creating health. We need to create the science and art of healthiness. And then, maybe, we can truly learn the arts of medicines. As long as medicine remains solely the field of technicians - it will continually fail to reach our highest expectations.

We want our children to create beauty. We want them to be artists - to rise above the mundane creations of builders, factory workers and technicians. We want them to live a better, healthier life. We are all children.

yours in health,
tracy

I won't make it out to work today, I've got two colds and a flu.

2011-12-19T22:17:00.000-08:00

I won't make it out to work today,
I've got two colds and a flu.
I'm sniffing and sneezing,
My head's all stuffed up.
And now I'm hot, and cold too.

My body is aching,
My bones they are creaking,
I'm barfing and running to poo.
I can't make it out to work today,
I've got two colds and a flu.
...
(and I think I'm hung-over too...)

Did you ever have two colds at once? How would you know? There are over 100 different types of virus that can cause a cold... Surely it is possible to get a cold, and then to get another cold within a few hours, or days, or even a week.

I always wondered about the folk wisdom:

"with proper treatment, you can cure a cold in 7 days,
if you leave it alone, it will go away in a week".

But sometimes a cold lasts 10 days, or two weeks, or maybe longer. Maybe a 10 day cold is really a 7 day cold and another 7 day cold on day 3 of the first day? Maybe a three week cold is actually three weak colds?

Maybe it's unfortunate that colds are so common, and so easily cured that few have noticed 'two colds at once'?

And what if you have a cold, and then you get the flu? Or if you have the flu, and then you get the cold? Can you have two flus (that doesn't even look like a word) at once?

How many different kind of flu are out there at once? Flu tends to go in waves, epidemics, so in general there is only one wave passing through - although it is possible to get two if you are in a flu area when another wave comes thru. I think two flu infections are more serious than two colds.

Which is worse, a cold and a flu? Or a flu and a cold?

No matter which comes first, I'm suspect it weakens your resistance to the other.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the first one puts your immune system on high alert - and therefore second is weaker. I'm not sure I want to volunteer for this type of medical study.....

Take care this Christmas season, to your health, tracy
Personal Health Freedom

ps. I'm not sick. I had this silly poem running around in my head. And I retired 3 years ago, so I don't have to go out to work today, although there are lot of Christmas chores. I just had to share...

Measurement of Healthiness Part 1: Measurements, Summaries and Goals

2011-12-18T06:58:00.000-08:00

How can we measure healthiness?

Healthiness must be measured comprehensively, using the hierarchy of health. We need to measure many components in each layer in the hierarchy: genetics, nutrients, cells, tissues, organs, systems, body, mind, spirits and communities, to create a useful measure of healthiness.

There are many different types of 'health measurement', some of which are more appropriate, more accurate, and more effective than others.

Direct vs Indirect Measurements
It is silly to measure brightness by searching shadows, and superficial to measure healthiness by searching sicknesses.

Health measurements should measure healthiness as directly as possible. Resting heart rate is a direct measurement of healthiness. Heart rate after exercise is a measurement of strength, not a measurement of healthiness. Erratic heart rate is a measure of illness, not a direct measurement of healthiness, although it can be a useful indirect measurement of healthiness.

Illness and death measurements and statistics are indirect measurements of health, and should be viewed with caution. Death statistics and illness statistics might measure healthiness of a community, or not. Improvements in medicine can help people live longer without actually increasing their healthiness. Improvements in, or changes to diagnostic protocols can increase illness statistics without actually decreasing healthiness.

Tests against a Scale vs Binary Measurements

Scales of healthiness are more useful than yes/no answers. A effective healthiness scale clearly identifies and quantifies the grey areas that exist in all aspects of health. It is much more powerful, from a health point of view, to say 'your pulse rate is 10 percent above your optimum'. Of course it is extremely difficult to identify optimum health measurements for different groups of people and more difficult for individuals. Difficult should not stop us from trying.

Tests that provide results on a scale, need independent scoring for variations above and below the optimum goal. If your pulse target is 50 beats per minute - and your heart rate is 50 bpm below the target - you are dead. But if your heart rate is 50 above the target, it is still within the 'acceptable' range from an illness point of view. You could easily be alive with a heart rate well above 100 bpm.

Objective over Subjective

Health measurements that are more objective are preferred over subjective measurements, although both may be relevant. A measurement of your pulse rate by a professional, even by an amateur, is a more accurate and useful measurement than asking - does your heart seem to beat faster than it should?

Targets should be Health Oriented, not Illness Avoidance Oriented

As discussed in a prior blog post: Are You Measuring Illness or Healthiness? a measurement of your pulse that is intended to detect illness uses a different target than a healthiness measurement. If you are not ill, your resting pulse might be somewhere in a wide range, from 60 to 100 beats per minute. The result of the illness test is binary - you are in the healthy range (healthy) or not (ill). A healthiness test, on the other hand, will have a target - which might be 50 beats per minute - and detect the amount of deviation from the health target - giving a result on a scale.

Avoid tests with Short Term Temporary Variations

A test of alertness is not a test of healthiness - it may be a test of how awake the subject is, or how much coffee or alcohol they have consumed in the last few hours. It is not a test of healthiness. A measurement of illness needs to know 'are you sick right now'. A measurement of healthiness is more useful if it tells 'how healthy you are this month', ignoring the temporary, short term deviations. Resting pulse rate is more relevant than 'randomly tested pulse rate'.

Summary Measurements

Because the measurement of healthiness is in its infancy, we have not developed any techniques to summarize different measurements to create a healthiness profile for each layer in the hierarchy, nor a overall healthiness profile. As we learn to measure healthiness - we will learn which measurements more accurately represent overall healthiness, and which are less useful. A fundamental goal for summary measurements is to ensure that the summary for each layer is on a scale of zero to 100 percent.

Multiple Goals are Required

It is important that health scales, against which a measurement is compared, be as comprehensive as possible. A measurement of Vitamin C consumption might compare the result of the measurement against the minimum RDA (Recommended Daily Allowance), the minimum RDI (Recommended Daily Intake), the maximum UL (Upper Limit) as well as optimal recommendations from various sources. At this time - there are no officially recognized optimal rates for consumption of Vitamin C for healthiness. We must rely on the best available sources - and not throw up our hands in resignation.

Each person must have the freedom to make their own decisions, and even adjust their own goals, based on information available from multiple sources. It will be valuable to compare analysis using different sources of target goals.

Presentation of Results

Analysis of the results of a series of healthiness measurements will require sophisticated techniques, that change as we learn more about healthiness. It is essential that healthiness measurements be stored in a computer system so that they can easily be brought forward and re-analyzed as theory develops. Let's look at a hypothetical subject: Alice.

Alice has many aspects of her healthiness measured today, and scores calculated for each layer in the HH (Hierarchy of Health). The measurements - are clearly defined. The calculated scores are based on current knowledge about healthiness.

In two years, Alice might have her healthiness tested again. There may be more measurements taken, and some might be no longer considered relevant - therefore not measured. The scoring algorithm will have changed as well. Over time, our knowledge about healthiness will change - but the measurements made today are historical and do not change.

When Alice receives her results, two years from today she will receive a fresh analysis of her healthiness at each level in the hierarchy - and an overall healthiness result.

She will also want to have a comparison of her new results with today's results - based on the new analysis model. Of course the new model will may have different measurements - some new and possibly some missing.

An effective comparison must compare the measurements that are the same, and if possible extrapolate some measurements that are missing - and then prepare a comparative analysis based on the measurements that are common. This is clearly a job for a computer program - which will also evolve over time as we learn more about meta-healthiness.

Measurement of Healthiness - Current Status

It is clear that we do not measure healthiness in any comprehensive fashion today. It may be a long time before we develop efficient and effective techniques to measure healthiness. We do have some individual measurements of healthiness, but even those are suspect and may be very poor quality. We have not yet analyzed any health measurements to determine if they are effective in measuring healthiness.

Health Freedom

I believe we might never have absolute answers about health and healthiness. There will, and should always be, conflicting ideas and opinions. Each individual must make their own decisions and must be free to make decisions affecting their healthiness. We have much room for our knowledge to grow.

yours in health, tracy
Personal Health Freedom

Are you measuring Illness, or Healthiness? Healthiness does not exist.

2011-12-14T08:42:00.000-08:00

To be ill is to be afflicted with a specific sickness, disease or other health condition.
An illness is a specific sickness, disease or other health condition.
similarly,

To be sick is to be afflicted with a specific illness, disease or other health condition.
A sickness is a specific illness, disease or other health condition.

Healthy is enjoying vigor and health of body, mind or spirit. (Merriam-Webster)

but...
according to Merriam-Webster, the word 'healthiness' does not exist - you are re-directed to 'healthy' in the online version of the dictionary. Similarly, Wikipedia does not have an entry for healthiness - it simply re-directs you to healthy.

Healthiness needs to be defined if we are to measure it.

Healthiness is a specific incidence, or measurement, of health. Overall healthiness is a summary of measurements of health.

There are another words that may cause confusion. Ill-health and unhealthiness, for example. What do they mean? What should they mean? I will deliberately avoid these words when possible. Ill-health is actually, according to Merriam-Webster "some disease is present, but". It is a state of illness, not a state of health. Unhealthiness is also, according to Merriam-Webster "not in good health, sickly or diseased". e.g. Both words can be replaced with ill or illness - of varying degrees.

We are very familiar with some specific illness/health measurements, most notably, the four vital signs - body temperature, pulse rate, blood pressure and respiratory rate.

In each case there is a healthy range - and two unhealthy ranges, deficient and excessive. A measurement of your vital signs can be a measurement of your healthiness - or your unhealthiness.

How can we tell if we are measuring healthiness or illness? We find what we are looking for.

When scientists were studying light, trying to understand the behavior of light, they found an interesting result. There were two competing theories. Light consists of particles. Light consists of waves. Scientists found that, if they tested for particles - they were able to prove that light consisted of particles. And when they tested for waves - they were able to prove that light consisted of waves.

Then it got more complicated. Scientists were able to design a door that only let one particle of light through at once. Then they tested for waves - and waves were found.

They concluded that whether light acts like a particle or a wave - the nature of light depends on what you measure, not on a fundamental property of light.

And so it is with healthiness and illness. If we are searching for health, we measure healthiness. If we are searching for ills - we measure illness.

Almost every time someone measures your temperature, temperature, blood pressure, or respiration - they are checking for illness. If we ask someone to check our health status - and they start by testing our temperature, our pulse, etc... We might assume they are checking for illness.

In isolation, a single measurement, or even all four measurements provide minimal information about your level of health - although each might, even in isolation, provide significant information or indication about your level of sickness.

If you are healthy, all four measurements; pulse, respiration, blood pressure, and temperature might be in the 'normal range' - you will have no useful information about your level of healthiness. If you are sick - one or more of these measurements may be outside of the normal range, indicating illness.

Specific healthiness measurements may indicate illness or sickness, suggesting further investigation and diagnosis - but specific measurements do not effectively measure healthiness.

An interesting detail about these four measurements is that they are compared to 'normal ranges', not to 'healthy ranges' nor to 'optimal ranges'. These so called 'normal ranges', are 'ranges that indicate no illness has been detected'.

Healthy ranges, and optimal ranges have not been identified - and it may be that optimal ranges are different, narrower or broader than the normal range - optimal ranges have not been studied scientifically for individuals nor groups.

Let's look at Resting Pulse Rate in more detail. A normal adult pulse rate ranges from 60 to 100 bpm. This might lead you to assume, incorrectly, that the optimal rate is the mid-point between 60 and 100, e.g. about 80 bpm.

Actually, lower 'normal' measurements, for all four vital signs, indicate healthier status than higher 'normal' measurements - when we are measuring healthiness. Athletes have a normal pulse rate much lower than 'normal adults'. Athletes however, put their focus on strength, and in competitions on 'peak performance' which may actually be detrimental to overall healthiness.

It is very difficult to identify an 'optimal pulse rate' for the general population - and many qualifiers might be required when applying this rate to individual persons. e.g. It might depend on height, weight, blood pressure, an even 'size of the heart'.

How might we measure health? How might we measure 'overall healthiness'?

Like the scientists searching for waves, or particles, we must know what we are searching for.

If we are searching for illness - we will not measure healthiness. We will not find healthiness - we will only find illness or 'normal' e.g. 'no illness'.

The way to measure healthiness - is to ensure that our goal is healthiness. If our goal is the elimination of disease or illness - we need to measure illness.

When our goal is optimization of health - we will measure healthiness. When we suspect illness - we can switch our goals back to measuring and fighting illness.

When we are healthy - our goal should be to measure, and to improve our healthiness.

Actually, we need to measure healthiness and illness, both - throughout our lives. It is important to measure our illness - even when we think we are healthy, with prevention as our objective. Similarly, it is important to measure our healthiness when we are ill - to determine the most effective treatments.

But we should not confuse the measurement of illness with the measurement of healthiness. Even the exact same measurement - pulse for example, will give different information and recommendations, depending on our goal - optimization of healthiness vs detection of illness.

A measurement of pulse from an illness point of view might detect a rapid pulse, in an emergency situation. If your illness pulse is too high, further investigation is required. You may need some medication and relaxation to lower your pulse. Or perhaps you have lost blood and need an injection of fluids.

A measurement of pulse from a healthiness point of view might observe that your pulse is high, that it could be lower. If your health pulse is to high, exercise might be recommended to reduce your pulse, by increasing your healthiness.

The illness researcher (medical doctor) detects rapid pulse - recommends calmness, further investigation and possibly treatment. A healthiness researcher measures rapid pulse and recommends exercise. Almost exactly opposite recommendations - based on different measurements of pulse, which detected - 'rapid pulse'. Note: the medical, or illness definition of 'rapid pulse' is a different, higher number, than the healthiness definition of 'rapid pulse'.

Our current measurements of illness are very sophisticated. Our current measurements of health are of very poor quality - almost non-existent. Our measurements of illness can be summarized, creating meta-information, to distinguish between many different diseases, and variations of disease. Our measurements of healthiness are seldom summarized to create useful meta-information. The field of medicine is very well developed. The field of health is just in its infancy.

We need to measure healthiness, to optimize our health.

yours in health,
tracy
Personal Health Freedom

Are the richest people the healthiest people?

2011-12-06T06:59:00.001-08:00

You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of healthiness. Should you have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of the 1 percent. Will it improve your health - if you improve your personal wealth?

Are the 1 percent wealthiest people also the healthiest 1 percent? It's an interesting question.

You might think that people who are very wealthy would want to use that wealth to improve their health. Maybe it's true.

Are they healthier? There is no evidence that the wealthiest 1 percent are any healthier than the rest of us. There two reasons why they might never be the healthiest.

Let's suppose you are a member of the 1 percent wealthiest in your country - and you want to know if you are also a member of the 1 percent healthiest.

Who do you ask? What test(s) can you take? Where can you go to find an answer? Who can reliably measure your health - and tell you if you are in the top 1 percent? No-one. Nowhere.

Your doctor might say something like 'you are a picture of health', 'you are as healthy as someone 5 or 10 years younger', or 'you are very healthy, but you need to quit smoking'. Do these measurements actually mean anything? Do they have any scientific validity? No. We don't measure health. If you are sick - you are not healthy. Otherwise, you are healthy. Our health measurements are, for the most part, binary. Yes or no. You are healthy, or not.

The first reason you cannot be the healthiest is a technical reason. We don't measure healthiness. Therefore, there is no scientific evidence. There is no scientifically accepted technique, not even a scientific prototype technique for measuring overall health. So, we can't tell if any individual, or any income group, is healthier. We might assume that the poorest people are less healthy - and it make sense to assume. But assumptions can be wrong. We need to measure. We do have some measurements for individual components of health - but there is no agreement, no research into which items are most important to healthiness. And there's the medical vs health issue. Most so called 'health measurements' are actually measurements of 'illness'.

We measure sickness. We measure illness and then extrapolate, under the assumption that people who are less sick are more healthy. This can lead to useful, but also to ridiculous analyses. The World Health Organization, for the most part, measures illness. The closest their statistics come to measuring health are the measurements of life expectancy.

Is a measurement of life expectancy a measurement of healthiness? It provides useful information in the study of large groups, but for smaller groups, or individuals - it is almost useless. What use is a health measurement that can only be executed after you are dead?

Is it possible, you might ask, that members of the 1 percent are the healthiest - but we just don't measure it? Frankly, no. How do we know? We know because we do measure illness - and the wealthiest 1 percent are not the 'least ill'. Measurements of illness are NOT measurements of healthiness, but we can expect some correlation. eg. The people who are 'most healthy' should also be the people who are 'least ill'. Richard Wilkinson has demonstrated that, among the richest nations, there is a huge spread in 'unhealthiness' - with Japan and Sweden having very low unhealthiness - while the UK and the US have very high levels of unhealthiness. He has concluded that this spread is largely due to unequal distribution of wealth. And he has also demonstrated that in countries with huge wealth - and large inequities between wealth of individuals - even the wealthiest individuals have more unhealthiness.

The second reason that the 1 percent are probably not the healthiest is, "you can't buy healthiness". There is no need to ask "Does money make unhealthiness more bearable." The question is moot. Money should be used to create healthiness, not to make in more bearable.

If you look again at the hierarchy of health - it is clear that you can't buy healthiness with money. The layers in the hierarchy of health: genetics, nutrition, cells, tissues, organs, systems, body, mind, spirit and community.

You can buy nutrients, which have potential to produce healthy cells, tissues, organs, systems, body and mind. But dollars will not help you to buy the healthiest nutrients - because we (our scientists) don't have any idea which are healthiest. There is constant debate about which foods are healthiest, and which are the unhealthiest.

The debate about which foods are healthiest is often confused with similar debates about: which foods 'cure illness'; and which foods might 'prevent illness'; - both lists which might be very different foods than those which are healthiest. It makes sense that some 'unhealthy' foods might cure an 'illness', by killing it - and leaving you alive.

And if we do learn which foods are healthiest? Maybe the best won't be to your taste.

Even if you consume the best nutrients, your body and mind need physical and mental stress (exercise) to help you attain optimal health. This takes time and energy - and you can't pay someone else to do it for you. But more important - we (our scientists) don't know which exercises are best for your body, and which are best for your mind, nor the most appropriate frequency. And the theoretically best stresses - might not be your favorite. Each person needs to find the best for themselves, with some guidance from science.

And what about spiritual healthiness? Can you buy it with money? Or do we find that the people who are most healthy spiritually - care the least about money? We can't measure genetic, or nutritional health effectively - how can we possibly learn to measure spiritual health scientifically? Does the Pope have a healthy spirit? Do religious leaders have healthy spirits? Does the Dalai Lama have the healthiest spirit? We know that the person with the strongest muscles might not be the healthiest person. Does the person with the strongest spirit have the healthiest spirit? An interesting question.

And community healthiness? Can your health be optimal if you live in an unhealthy community? We each live in many communities. Our family, our friends, our clubs and organizations, our various levels of government, our country and the community of our planet.

Ultimately, each of our communities - even the communities of our enemies, and people who we don't understand, is part of our largest community - the community of humans.

Do you wonder why a wealthy lawyer might leave his wealth generating career and move to a cabin in the backwoods? Maybe it increases his healthiness. Was Henry David Thoreau, while in his cabin in the woods, healthier than the factory worker, or market farmer, or the town mayor - each of which made more money than he. Did their money make them healthier? Do people who win the lottery become healthier? Or do they spend more money on medicines.

With money, you can buy medicines to help with illness, and medicines to help you deal with symptoms, but you can't buy healthiness. Each of us must find our own way to our own level of healthiness.

You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of healthiness.

yours in health, tracy
Personal Health Freedom

Healthy Dying - How do you want to die?

2011-12-04T06:55:00.001-08:00

Sherwin B. Nuland, in his book The Art of Aging, answers the question. We know, he tells us, how we want to die.

We want to be healthy, and then die quickly. No-one wants to linger for years, becoming more and more decrepit, dirty, dependent, and unhealthy until we finally fade away.

He says "There are those, of course, who would like to die 'all at once,' but others who would prefer a short period of decline, provided it is not at all like the agonizing waning that so many suffer today."

And then he goes on to tell us how this can be achieved. Not suicide. Exercise.

When we maintain our health through exercise - we maintain or entire body, mind and spirit in a healthier balance. Exercise enhances our appetite as well as our digestive system. Awareness and alertness is increased. We feel, and we are, healthier and happier.

I have often wondered whether it is more effective, in the long, long term, to exercise regularly, or to exercise in fits and spurts - for health and longevity. If we only get 'so many breaths', or 'so many calories' before we die - then exercising too frequently might 'burn them up'. This could result in a trade-off of strength vs longevity. It may be that if we exercise more frequently throughout our lives - we are stronger and more balanced, but we 'burn out' sooner. Or maybe not. I suspect none of us will know the answer before we die - so each of us is to make our own, personal exercise choices.

Personally, I tend to drift for a few years with adequate levels of exercise, and then every five years or so I jump into a heavy exercise routine and raise my strength and fitness significantly. Then, after a few months, or perhaps even a year, I start to drift downwards again.

I'm glad I have a wife who is more driven. She pulls me to exercise - I want to be with her and she pushes herself to exercise. Otherwise I might drift lower before I get back to intensive exercise.

Many of us need a coach every once in a while, to push our exercise healthiness to a new level. What Sherwin found among the elderly is very interesting. Even amoung the very old, a push (or perhaps better described as assistance or encouragement) to exercise regularly helped them develop significant increases in muscle strength - resulting in better healthiness overall.

Sherwin goes on to explain that, for the elderly, or those above middle age, the most effective exercises for healthy balance are resistance training exercises, typically with weights.

The end result is what he calls 'compression of morbidity'. People who exercise regularly - live longer and then die faster.

That's how I want to die.

Yours in health, tracy
Personal Health Freedom

The Scientific Measurement of Healthiness

2011-12-01T17:07:00.001-08:00

Can we measure healthiness scientifically?

Let’s look at two hypothetical women, introduced in a recent blog about detox and cleansing.

Alice and Zizi, both in their mid-forties, have no identified medical issues. They are each relatively normal, with one notable exception. You might know someone in each profile.

Alice gets, on average 5 to 7 colds a year, over the past 10 years. When she gets a cold, she is quite seriously affected, and the cold lasts, typically, between 8 and 10 days.

Zizi gets on average, a single cold every 1 or 2 years. Her colds typically last 3 to 5 days and she suffers only minor systems.

That’s what the health (medical) system knows about Alice and Zizi. About their illness. The health (medical) system never looks at their health; in fact Alice and Zizi only contact the health (medical) system when they are sick. And Zizi, because she is generally not seriously affected by her colds – has almost no contact with the health (medical) system. Alice is well known at the clinic, if not looking for medicine; she is at the very least, looking for a doctor’s note to stay home from work.

Now, the critical question. Who is healthier, Alice or Zizi?

I think we can agree that Zizi is the most healthy. But we can also see that she is ignored by the (so called) ‘health system’, because the ‘health system’ is in fact a ‘medical system’, not a health system.

Our health systems are ignorant of the healthiness of Zizi.

If Alice and Zizi go to a doctor, when they do not have a cold, they might both be told they are 'perfectly healthy'. As if health is measured using yes or no answers. "No illness" equals perfect health.

We don’t have a health system. There are no professionals, there is no scientific community that studies Zizi – and no-one that studies the differences between Alice and Zizi. Our medical system pays a lot of attention to Alice, and tries to cure or prevent her colds – and it ignores Zizi. Zizi is healthy, and there is no ‘health system’ to take notice of Zizi's healthiness.

Why is it important to study Zizi? As long as we only study illness - we have an incomplete image of health and healthiness. Our concepts of illness, treatment, cure, prevention, and health are all distorted by a view that does not understand or measure healthiness.

I believe Zizi is healthier - and the cold makes no difference. That's my opinion. But I would like to have a scientific answer.

A scientific answer should be independent of my opinion. It would make objective measurements and decide who is healthier. Of course there is debate, even in science, but we need a science first - before we can start a scientific debate. Today, there is no science of healthiness.

How would we obtain an objective, independent, scientific measurement of the health of Alice and Zizi?

Is it appropriate to measure healthiness – every day? Or can we only measure sickness every day? Maybe, when we study healthiness – we will learn that the minimum resolution of a health measurement is 3 weeks. Or perhaps longer. That a health measurement of one day, or even 3 or 7 days is irrelevant to health status, only relevant to ‘illness status’.

Or we might find that some measurements of healthiness are immediate and effective. A visual examination of the blood cells of Alice and Zizi might consistently reveal that Zizi is healthier. While examining their colds and sickness status requires analysis over several months or years for an accurate result.

Individual illnesses are measured by a different set of symptoms, tests, and observations. But these symptoms, tests and observations do not necessarily measure healthiness. Nor does the absence of symptoms.

I believe an objective test for healthiness must ignore the cold, which is a temporary ‘illness’. When we have true tests for healthiness - they will detect a significant differences between the healthiness levels of Alice and Zizi, without reference to a specific incidence of a cold.

Our medical systems ignores the difference between Alice and Zizi, and has no officially recognized way to measure it. If someone says "Zizi is healthier than Alice" - there is no proof. Even a historical record of the frequency of their colds does not constitute proof. It is simply historical and anecdotal.

How can we measure healthiness scientifically? We have some crude measurements - most are designed to measure populations, not individuals. BMI tells us if a population is overweight or underweight. But we are cautioned against using it on individuals. And if Alice and Zizi have simiar BMI scores - that does not help. Most medical tests are designed to measure illness, not to measure healthiness.

I believe we can measure healthiness scientifically. I'm not a scientist, but I have faith in science. If it can be measured, science will find a way. And healthiness can be measured.

If we are to measure health, we need to develop scientific measurements of various elements in each of the layers of the hierarchy of health - genetics, nutrition, cells, tissues, organs, systems, body, mind, spirit and community.

There are over 100 nutrients which are critical to optimize health. To develop a scientific system of healthiness measurement we need to:

a) identify, for each nutrient, the optimal range
b) develop tests to determine if the person being tested is above, below or in the optimal range
c) determine which nutrients are most critical to optimal health, and which are less critical. This cannot be done until analysis of each nutrient progresses to a point where comparisons an be made reliably. eg. A long time in the future.

Similarly for each cell type in the body, we need tests to measure their health level. However, testing some cells, liver cells, for example, might entail serious risk. I believe that the first tests of cell healthiness will be done by measuring the healthiness of blood cells. We may find that testing the healthiness of blood cells is a reliable indicator for the health of many different types of cells. We can also test cells in the skin, mouth and hair - without serious risk.

Each layer in the hierarchy of health is 'greater than the sum of its parts'. Measuring the health of your genetics does not necessarily determine the health of your nutrients. Measuring the healthiness of your nutrients does not necessarily provide a useful measure of the health of your cells. It might be an influencing factor, but not necessarily the complete picture. If you are suffering from toxins, measuring nutritional health - of essential nutrients, will give an incomplete picture. Of course if you improve your health in any area - you should expect that this improvement will permeate the hierarchy to some extent.

As we move through layers in the hierarchy of health, the relationships are farther apart. Of course there may be direct links - a specific genetic unhealthiness might cause unhealthy white blood cells. But in general, results measured in one layer cannot be used to make assumptions about other layers in the hierarchy.

There is also the possibility that deficits in healthiness in higher layers will cause deficits in lower layers, or in all layers. If you live in a community that consumes a less than optimal diet - your nutritional health will probably be less than optimal as a result. This may lead to other health deficits.

I believe we can measure health. One place we could start is in the laboratory. Maybe we should try to measure the health of lab mice? We need to find two lab mice, name one of them Alice, and one of them Zizi - and compare their healthiness. At present, I suspect that lab mice are only used for tests of illness, not tests of healthiness. I also suspect that, like the human Alice and Zizi - if the mice are not 'sick', our current system measures them as '100 percent healthy'. Just like we do for people.

When we learn to measure the healthiness of lab mice - we will be closer to measuring the healthiness of humans.

When we start to measure the healthiness of humans - we will take the first steps towards optimal health.

What might the world, what might our health systems look like when we can measure health?

That is an interesting question to be discussed in future blog posts.

You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of healthiness. Pursuit of healthiness is impossible if we cannot measure healthiness.

Yours in health, tracy
Personal Health Freedom

Alberta Views: The Urge To Purge - A Health Centred Response

2011-11-29T17:40:00.001-08:00

Alberta Views Magazine

Re: The Urge to Purge article - November 2011

When I opened Alberta Views and saw the article Urge toPurge. I was excited that I might learn something new. I dived in at speed. It was only a few seconds when I spotted thename Stephen Barrett. I knew you’d beenhoodwinked. So, I read on, but got moreand more depressed and dissatisfied as the article passed thru my ummmm….

Stephen Barrett reminds me of A.A. Milne’s poem Lines andSquares:

Whenever I walk in a London street,
I’m ever so careful to watch my feet;
And I keep in the squares,
And the masses of bears,
Who wait on the corners all ready to eat
The sillies who tread on the lines of the street
Go back to their lairs,
And I say to them, “Bears,
Just look how I’m walking in all the squares!”

I can see why Deepak Chopra describes Stephen Barrett as the“self appointed vigilante for the suppression of curiosity”. I agree with Deepak Chopra. Stephen Barrett never steps outside of thesquares. And he thinks that anyone who doesis a bear (or worse, a quack).

Enough ranting about Barrett. What about detox?

The article subtitle

“Cleansing and detoxing isn’tscientific, so why do so many Albertans do it?”

Let’s deal first with the technical error, the statement that “detoxing isn’tscientific”. I suggest you look upscientific in a dictionary. Trees arenot scientific. Drugs and treatments are not scientific. A healthy diet is not scientific. Scientificdefines a process by which things are measured against a hypothesis. ‘Things’are not scientific, with the exception of things like scientific procedures,scientific studies,scientific measurement and the like. Note, this phraseappears again in the conclusion – it’s just as silly there. And wrong too.

I think you meant to say

“there is no scientific evidence tosupport the statement that detoxing prevents illness”.

And that is where we part company. You are right. And very wrong.

I run a blog called Personal Health Freedom. You can find meat www.personalhealthfreedom.com.

My blog is about health – not about illness. I write about the need to define and measure health. I define a hierarchy of health, so that we might learn how to study health - as opposed to studying illness. I do take time out todefine illness and the causes of illness, most of my energy is towards ‘health’. I take care to tell readers that I am not a doctor. Don't rely on my advice. Check for yourself.

Health must be defined and measured separately fromillness. No-one bothers to measure health – our medical systems only measureillness.

Let me give a little example to clarify. Let’s talk abouttwo hypothetical women, Alice and Zizi, both in their mid-forties. You might know someone in each profile.

Alice gets, on average 5 to 7 colds a year, over the past 10years. When she gets a cold, she is quite seriously affected, and the coldlasts, typically, between 8 and 10 days.

Zizi gets on average, a cold every 1 or 2 years. Her colds typically last 3 to 5 days and shesuffers only minor systems.

That’s what the medical system knows about Alice andZizi. About their illness. But the medical system never looks at their health;in fact Alice and Zizi only contact the medical system when they are sick. AndZizi, because she is generally not seriously affected by her colds – has almostno contact with the medical system. Alice is well known at the clinic, if not looking for medicine; she isat the very least, looking for a doctor’s note to stay home from work.

Now, the critical questions. Who is healthier, Alice or Zizi? I think we can agree that Zizi is the most healthy. But we can also see that she is ignored bythe (so called) ‘health system’, because the ‘health system’ is in fact a ‘medicalsystem’, not a health system.

But if Alice and Zizi go to a doctor when they do not have a cold, they might both be told they are 'perfectly healthy'. As if health was measure using yes or no answers. "No illness" equals health.

We don’t have a health system. There are no professionals, there is no scientific community that studies Zizi – and no-one that studies thedifferences between them. Our medicalsystem pays a lot of attention to Alice, and tries to cure or prevent her colds– but it ignores Zizi. Zizi is healthy, and there is no ‘health system’.

Now a more challenging question. On November 12^th, 2010 – Zizi gota cold. It was minor on November 12^th,full blown on November 13^th – and she was recovering by November 14^th.During that span of time, Alice did not have a cold.

So, on November 12^th who was healthier? Alice or Zizi? On November 13^th, who washealthier, Alice or Zizi? On November 14^th,who was healthier – Alice or Zizi.

It is clear that on November 11^th – Alice was healthier,and on November 15^th, she was healthier again.

A scientific answer should be independent of your opinion –and independent of my opinion.

Howwould we obtain a scientific measurement of the health of Alice and Zizi? Is it appropriate to measure healthiness –every day? Or can we only measuresickness every day? Maybe, when we study healthiness – we will learn that theminimum resolution of a health measurement is 3 weeks. Or longer. That a health measurement of oneday, or even 3 days is irrelevant to health status, only relevant to ‘illness status’.

It seems clear that we need different ways to measurehealthiness from illness. Each illness is measured by a different set of symptoms, tests, and observations. But thesesymptoms, tests and observations do not measure healthiness.

I believe an objective test for healthiness must ignore thecold, which is a temporary ‘illness’. When we have a true test for healthiness - it will detect a significant difference between the healthiness levels of Alice and Zizi, without reference to the frequency or duration of colds.

So what has this to do with detox?

Let’s go back to the scientific method question. Your quote:“why (do) detox diets never undergo scientific tests?” You say “Then there’s the scientificmethod. Detox proponents don’t seem tocare for it.”

But you, and the detox proponents and opponents, aren't understanding science.Detox proponents aren't necessarily the ones who don’t like the scientific method. It might be the medical establishment that doesn’tlike the scientific method (except when it is used for medical purposes).

You asked Oregon naturopathic physician DicksonThom why “detox diets never undergo scientific tests?” he could only joke. Why? Because he is so imbedded in the medicalsystem he can’t see the forest (health) for the diseased trees (illnesses).

If detox diets are about health, the scientific tests, to date, aremeasuring the wrong thing.

If detox diets are about health, not about illness, then weneed a scientific test to measure the health of people before, during and afterthe detox treatment. We might search for asimilar scientific test to use as a model. Search away. There are, atpresent, NO SCIENTIFIC STUDIES of the effect of any substance, treatment oraction on HEALTH. There are only scientificstudies of the effects of substances, treatments and actions on illness. Detox is about health, not about illness. Illnessis not health.

So, let’s suppose that detox improves your health. I’m notsaying it does – I’m interested in science. But let’s suppose that a specific detox treatment improves yourhealth, by x percent, on average.

All tests by the ‘scientific medical system’ will notdetect nor measure the improvement. Our medicalsystems and our medical tests do not measure the difference between Alice andZizi. Because they don’t measure health.

We don’t have any independent, objective tests to measure health –so we cannot tell if health was improved or not.

Let’s suppose the relationship is more complex. If, as the medical scientists claim, detoxkits might release toxins and thus actually harm your health status – then weneed to take the measurement further. Itmight be, for example that using a detox kit decreases your health for severaldays, or even a few weeks – but after that, your health is actuallybetter. Maybe this happened to you? Sort of like learning – firstseem to go backwards and then rebound later.

But… Have there been any scientific tests to measure thispossibility? No. There have been no tests of detox thatmeasure effects on health, short term nor the long term.

So, is detox scientific? Duh. The people who, like StephenBarrett, claim that ‘detoxing does not improve health’ are not scientific –because there has never been a test. ButBarrett claims that science proves detox is useless. Where is the scientific evidence? There is some evidence that our ‘medical system’ and its ‘scientific tests’ cannot measure benefits from detox. Is that becausethere are no benefits? Or is it adeficiency in the scientific tests? Wedon’t know.

What does each person who buys a detox kit decide? I’m guessing they say something like this

- I know it’s painful

- I believe my health is better after it is over

So they buy. And use. And if they feel healthier - that's the only measuring stick we have for health at present, they do it again, when they feel 'less healthy'.

I make the same judgement when I go for my swim. I know it’s painful. Cold. Wet. Messy. But I believe my health isbetter if I do it regularly. I knowmy health status does not change ‘because I went swimming once’. I go and I swim. I suffer, and I feel better and I get healthier.

The scientific tests don’t measure this reasoning. They measure ‘medical effects’, not healtheffects.

You are not the only person to make thismistake. Many of the people you talkedto in ‘health stores’ don’t understand the concept of health. So you were told that ‘your thinking is toolinear’ – when in fact Willard simply could not explain the situationin ‘medical terms’ – because it is not a medical question.

He has not learned to think in terms ofhealth. He may work in a 'health store', but he thinks in 'medical paradigms'.

Arpana Taylor speaks of a necessary ‘paradigm shift’, but cannot define the newparadigm. Aparna might understandunconsciously that detox is about health, not about illness – but our ‘health systems’ only deal with medical issues - and Aparna needs his own paradigm shift to understand, and thenexplain it to you.

Your conclusions, two:

- detox may have its merits, but it is notscientific

- detox diets don’t remove harmful substances fromthe body (Barrett is right)

Are false and misleading.

As noted above, the statement that ‘detox is not scientific’is not a scientific statement. If it is not false, it is nonsense.

If you meant to say “detox is not supported by scientificstudies of illness”, you might be technically right. But if people take detox for their health - the statement is irrelevant.

No-one has scientifically measured the health effects ofdetox. Frankly, no one hasscientifically measured the health effects of Vitamin C nor penicillin. We have only measured their illness effects.

The statement that “Detox diets don’t remove harmfulsubstances from the body” is also unscientific, as is most of what Barrettsays.

There are no scientific studies concluding that detox doesnot remove toxic substances from the body. Proving that a detox diet does not remove a harmful substancefrom my body requires an exhaustive study of detox diets along with anexhaustive study of what is excreted from my body – through various orifaces, beforeI am on the detox diet and then again while on the detox diet and again after I complete the detox protocol. This study hasnot been started, and I suspect it will never be completed.

The statement that 'detox diets don't remove harmful substances from the body' is what I call a 'black swan statement'. It is a wide generalization that can be proven wrong by a single exception. You can find a more detailed description and some examples of black swan statements in health here.

A final comment...

You mention the possibility of a placebo effect. But you missed a valuable alternative explanation. The change effect. The saying goes - a change is as good as a rest. Our diets sometimes tend to get 'stuck'. If we do not exercise care, we might find ourselves eating the same thing, every week, every month, over and over and over again for years. The detox diet changes this up - maybe only for a short period. But this change might be enough to improve our health. We don't know, because we cannot measure healthiness.

To your health, tracy

Why we don't have Health Freedom - Ed Griffin on the politics of health

2011-11-25T07:03:00.001-08:00

Two drug company executives are walking down the street, when they see a man limping heavily on his right leg, lurching from side to side, arms swinging, head falling and rising.

One said to the other - "a pity we can't do something for him".
The reply "Well of course we can. And we can make money in the process. We need to design a drug that paralyzes his left leg and then he'll be perfectly balanced."
"Interesting. But what about side effects?"
"Just look at him, he's lurching from side to side. I'll bet he's suffering from nausea, and possibly headaches - and he probably has pain in his left leg because it's working so hard. So what does it matter if the drug causes nausea, headaches, muscle pain? We'll just add them to the label."
"But, what if his right leg recovers? Then he'll lurch the other way?"
"Another opportunity. We can develop a mirror image drug that only affects his right leg, so that problem can be treated as well."

Isn't it just too close to the truth? All disease and illness is caused by imbalance.

Health is optimal balance. Healing is optimizing balance.

Drugs are toxins, often designed to throw your balance 'the other way', without healing the imbalance. Sometimes they give your body time to heal and recover balance - sometimes not.

Illnesses have symptoms, like headache, nausea, pain. Many of those symptoms are not directly caused by the illness but are secondary symptoms that arise as the illness causes other imbalances. Many drugs are designed to treat the symptoms, not the imbalance that is the illness.

Ed Griffin - talks about The Politics of Health

Video Transciption

In this video, Ed Griffin explains the reason we have no health freedom. He explains the history of medicine in America - and how that history is specifically designed to restrict treatments that are not 'drugs'.

It is unfortunate that Ed Griffin, like most people who attempt to speak on this subject mis-titled his video. It is called The Politics of Health. But in actual fact it is The Politics of Illness and Treatments.

Health is ignored by our medical system. But not by me.

Yours in health, tracy
Personal Health Freedom

Community Health - can we measure the health of our communities?

2011-11-22T06:03:00.001-08:00

Community Health is the top layer of the hierarchy of health. What is a community? What is community health? How can we measure community health? How healthy are our communities?

The first level of community is the "community of self". Each of us lives in the community of our body, our mind, our spirit with our gods - and our devils.

No person is independent. Most interact with other people and other communities. Even a total hermit lives in a community of plants, animals, sun, moon and stars as well as his own mind, body and spirit.

The household is a fundamental unit of community and a valuable component of community health. A household might have only one person, interacting with their internal communities (mind, body, spirit) and external communities - but most households harbor more than one person, forming another community. A household might be so large that it contains an extended family community - or even more.

Communities exist in many formal and informal ways.

Individuals, families and households interact with many external communities; like minded people community associations (sports, leisure, goal oriented, etc.), business communities, worker communities, government communities, religious communities, to local community associations (residential area communities, civic communities, etc), communities of state, province, nation and ultimately the community of our planet - ultimately at least until we start to establish communities on other planets.

Often, as I write my blog, my research puts me to Wikipedia - today I decided it's time to make a donation.

Freedom of association and freedom of assembly are fundamental freedoms recognized by many human rights organizations. They are also fundamental components of health freedom.

You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of healthiness. Of course you cannot pursue healthiness without the right to freely develop, associate with, join, work in and if we wish leave - our communities. Of course, the saying goes "you can choose your friends, but you are stuck with your family". We also exercise our freedoms to try and change our communities - to improve our healthiness.

The health of our communities is an important factor in the health of each of us.

Can we measure the health of our communities? I have always believed that if you think you can, or you think you cannot - you are right. I think we can measure the health of our communities. I believe we should start today. We have already started.

Are some communities toxic? What does that mean? What can we do about toxic communities? What communities are 'most healthy'? What does that mean? How can we encourage communities to move towards health?

I don't believe any community is totally toxic, or totally healthy. Measuring the health of our communities is a useful tool to measure overall health.

There have been some interesting attempts to measure health of communities.

Sam Harris, in his interesting book "The Moral Landscape, how Science can Determine Human Values" suggests that one moral framework is better than another when it "increases the well-being of conscious creatures". An interesting proposition that we could apply directly to the health of communities. A community is healthier when it "increases the well-being of conscious creatures". Of course each community's goal is to look after its own members - so there may be conflicts between communities. But in general, a community's framework might be judged to be healthy - if it increases the well being of its members, and even healthier if it increases the well-being of all conscious creatures. We may find that some communities are happy to increase the well being of their members - to the detriment of non-members. Or even communities that work to increase the well being of some members while decreasing the well being of other members - Hitler's Germany immediately comes to mind. Communities can have sub-communities that are at odds with the goals of the larger community.

Richard Wilkinson in his TED presentation titled "How economic inequality harms societies" measures ill health of different communities - states and countries and compares the ill health to economic inequality. If we are measuring health of individuals - I might complain that he measures illness, not health, but when measuring health of large communities - a measurement of illness is a somewhat reliable indicator of health. Richard concludes that, as his title suggests, "economic inequality harms" communities, thus providing some valuable insight into how we might improve the health of our communities. He leaves the details to us, and our communities.

Each of us live our lives in many communities. Our health is affected by the health and healthiness of these communities. We can change our health status, by working to make our communities healthier. Many communities work directly to improve our health.

We might ask if there exist communities that work to decrease healthiness? I believe any community that attempts to restrict health freedom risks decreasing healthiness. A community that attempt to eradicate another community, or the members of another community - is clearly working to decrease healthiness - even if they believe they are making their own community 'more healthy'.

Yours in health, tracy
Personal Health Freedom

The 1 percent vs Community Health

2011-11-15T13:21:00.001-08:00

I have defined a hierarchy of health, that rises from genetics and nutrients, to cells, tissues, organs, systems, bodies, minds and spirit - to community. And I constantly suggest that we need to measure health at all levels.

This TED presentation, by Richard Wilkinson, makes it very clear that the 1 percent vs 99 percent problem in the USA is the cause of many health issues at the personal, spiritual and community levels. Stunning.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

yours in health, tracy
Personal Health Freedom

Great New Drug Discovery, Prevents Cancer Too

2011-11-15T10:28:00.001-08:00

A recent study reports that over 75 percent of advanced cancer patients have low levels of Vitamin D. Read about it here. The lowest levels of Vitamin D are associated with the most advanced cancers.

Vitamin D has become the new wonder drug. Vitamin D deficiency is implicated in Multiple Sclerosis. Flu season is the season when our sunlight deficiency causes a drop in our Vitamin D levels and a corresponding drop in the health of our immune systems. Moderate to high doses may reduce heart disease, and can slow the progress of congestive heart failure. Of course we have known for years that Vitamin D deficiency causes as loss of bone density progressing to rickets. Vitamin D is a commonly recommended preventative for osteoporosis. Vitamin D is now being studied for diabetes because it decreases insulin resistance - a benefit for diabetics.

What's wrong with this picture? It hi-lights some serious deficiencies in our medical paradigm. We need a health paradigm.

1. Vitamin D is a nutrient. Not a drug. It is studied as it if was a drug.

2. The main natural source of Vitamin D is sunshine. But people who sell sunscreen have built a huge propaganda message against sunshine - so many doctors are reluctant to prescribe sunshine to prevent disease. Fewer are likely to recommend sunshine for health. I have read - but not seen specific studies - that melanomas do NOT develop on areas of our skin that receive the most sun - the face and hands. Research published in the British Journal of Dermatology concluded that the perceived statistical increase in melanomas is most likely due to a shift in diagnoses which classify non-malignant lesions as cancerous. And countries near the equator,where the sun is strongest - tend to have lowest incidences of skin cancer. What's up with that? Here's Mercola's post on this item - the comments are interesting as well.

The wind is my drug - and now the sun as well.

3. We have clearly documented measurements of 'the amount of Vitamin D required to prevent illness'. Of course these numbers are being revised in light of new findings. But we have no recommendations, and no studies, of the amount of Vitamin D consumption (or creation via exposure to sunlight) that will optimize health. We only research for the 'minimum to prevent disease' and then we measure drug like effects when Vitamin D is used to treat disease.

4. You can be deficient in Vitamin D. Deficiency in Vitamin D means that you are consuming, or producing through exposure to sunlight, less than the RDA of Vitamin D. You can be preficient in Vitamin D. Preficiency exists when your Vitamin D levels are below the 'optimal' level of Vitamin D. But we do not know the optimal levels of Vitamin D. There are no studies to measure the optimal intake, or even optimal range, of any nutrient. So, we don't know what amount of Vitamin D is most healthy. And we don't know what amount of sunshine is most healthy.

5. Vitamin D affects your health. But we don't study health, we only study illness. How Vitamin D affects your health is poorly studied - and recent studies of Vitamin D are all focused on illness, not on health.

This might explain why the information about Vitamin D has remained hidden from view for so long. We are now starting to study Vitamin D deficiency more often, but we do not yet study Vitamin D preficiency, nor Vitamin D health. It also makes me wonder what other nutrient imbalances hold keys to illness - that we don't understand because we don't study health.

6. Vitamin D is studied in isolation. All nutrients tend to be studied, as if they are drugs, in isolation. When we learn to measure health, and to determine the correct amounts of nutrients for optimal health - we will learn about combinations of nutrients and how they affect health. Studies to date on multi-vitamin supplements, for example, treat each multi-vitamin recipe as a drug, and measure results as if they were drugs. Effects on health are not measured, because we don't measure health effectively. Only effects on illness are measured.

In theory, we should be able to:

a) Measure the health level of a person and the changes over a span of time, along many of the dimensions in the hierarchy of health. At present there are no established techniques to effectively measure and compare the health of so called 'healthy' individuals.

b) Measure the nutrient intake and changes in nutrient intake of the same person over the same span of time. It is very easy for our intake of nutrients to drift over time, without us being aware. We seldom evaluate diets - and are less likely to evaluate diets for overall nutrient content. Instead, diets are evaluated for factors that do not contribute directly to health - but might contribute to illness - calories, unhealthy fats, etc.

c) Analyze the relationships between nutrient intake, changes in nutrient intake, and health.

Instead, we measure when illness is found. We deliberately wait until something breaks, and then try to fix it, or try to figure out how to prevent it from breaking, without understanding

Your body is always growing, healing, repairing, working to improve your health. Working to restore health imbalances. Every person has a different level of health, different health strengths and weaknesses. But none of us have a clear idea what our individual strengths and weaknesses are. Which of the over 100 essential nutrients are in your diet in healthy amounts? What types of exercise are most healthy for your personal body?

Frankly, we don't know much about health. Hopefully we can start learning. You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of healthiness.

Yours in health, tracy
Personal Health Freedom

Are You Preficient

2011-11-09T17:25:00.000-08:00

What is preficient? Deficient is a medical term, relating to illness, not to health.

Preficient is when your nutrient consumption is below the amount for optimal health.

This raises two issues:
1. We don't know the optimal healthy amount for any nutrient
2. We don't measure health scientifically, so we cannot make scientific statements about health optimization.

But we can know many things, and use this information to build healthier bodies, families and communities. Let's start with the basic diagram of deficiency, healthy and excessive nutrient consumption. We'll start with Vitamin A. What do we know about healthy consumption of Vitamin A? Your consumption of Vitamin A might be deficient, healthy, or excessive.

The RDA, or AI - Adequate Intake of Vitamin A, according to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences is 900 ug per day (600 ug for females due to smaller size). The tolerable upper level is 3000 ug per day. Note the IOM advises that these numbers are general - individual results may vary.

So, the optimal amount for optimal health might be somewhere between 900 mg per day, and 3000 mg per day, according to the scientific opinions of the IOM. These numbers are not exact, and have personal individual variations even in healthy individuals. They are designed for use in planning nutrients for healthy people. They are also constantly being researched and debated.

We can update the diagram with these numbers.

The definition of the RDA is such that prolonged deficiency results in a medical condition. The UL is defined where prolonged excess results in symptoms, eg - the IOM does not define the level at which a medical condition will result from excessive Vitamin A.

Somewhere between the RDA and possibly above the UL - is where we will find the optimal nutrient intake level for Vitamin A.

The IOM does not attempt to define an intake level of Vitamin A (or any nutrient) to optimize health - IOM recommendations are specifically designed to avoid illness (deficiency) or symptoms (in excess). There are other sources that do research and provide recommendations for health.

SONA (Suggested Optimum Nutrient Allowance) provides a well researched estimate of the optimal intake of Vitamin A. Their recommendations are summarized in this diagram:

SONA recommends 2000 ug per day for adults to create optimal health. They state that toxicity can appear at 100,000 ug per day in healthy individuals - but caution that lower toxicity levels exist during pregnancy.

Clearly looking from a health view (SONA) provides very different advice than looking from a sickness view (IOM). As we should expect.

But, the title of this blog is "Are You Preficient?" What is 'preficient'? Preficient is pre-deficient. Eg. it is the space between the optimal consumption of Vitamin A and the deficiency (RDA) level of Vitamin A consumption.

You might be preficient, or deficient. If deficient, you might suffer specific illnesses over the long term. If preficient - you will not have optimal health.

When we map the IOM numbers (RDA) and the SONA numbers into a diagram, we can clearly see deficiency and preficiency levels.

X marks the area of preficiency for Vitamin A. If you are a male, over the age of 19 consuming less than 2000 ug per day - you may be preficient. If you consume less than 900 ug per day, you may be deficient.

What do we know about deficiency? Vitamin A deficiency over long periods of time, causes disease.

What do we know about preficiency? Preficiency is defined as 'the level below optimal health'. Preficiency might cause disease, or contribute to illness - where we have not yet found a link between the preficiency and the illness.

Vitamin A deficiency causes night blindness. Many seniors develop night blindness - which in some cases can be successfully treated with high doses of Vitamin A. Could long term deficiency, or even long term preficiency of Vitamin A cause night blindness? If we simply 'treat' night blindness with high doses of Vitamin A - we simply fix the problem when it is detected. If we act to improve health, instead of simply treating illness - we can avoid the problem before it occurs. We will also be acting to prevent permanent damage caused by Vitamin A preficiency or deficiency.

You might think that no-one, or hardly anyone is deficient.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture USDA's Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals, 60.1 percent of males over the age of 19 do not consume the RDA of Vitamin A. And 58.7 percent of females as well. Over 25 percent of males and females consumed less than half the RDA of Vitamin A.

Approximately sixty percent of us may be deficient in Vitamin A. Over 25 percent are almost certainly deficient in Vitamin A. However, it is important to note that the Office of Dietary Supplements of the National Institute of Health reports "Vitamin A deficiency rarely occurs in the United States" -- strange? What's going on here?

How many are preficient? We don't know, but we do know it is higher than 60 percent.

Vitamin A is a single nutrient. We know that a majority of adults are preficient of Vitamin A. We can guess that there are many other nutrients that are also preficient. But we don't measure preficiency. And we don't measure health - nor health level changes that might be caused by preficiency.

We should. We might learn, for example, that some specific diseases are caused by combined preficiencies. For example, if an adult is preficient in Vitamin A, and preficient in Omega 3 oils, and deficient in Vitamin B5 - we might find a very specific disease that is directly caused by this combination.

The truth is, we hardly measure deficiencies. And we don't study illness and disease caused by minor, or short term deficiencies. So we cannot take the next step - and measure illness and disease caused by combinations of deficiencies. There are many groups of diseases where our current 'medical paradigm' cannot find the cause. Maybe a health paradigm will help us to find some of these causes.

What can you do? You have only one choice - to do your own research, and make your own decisions. Because even the best information available from the IOM is only valid for 'healthy individuals'. And we don't measure health, so we have no idea how healthy you are - or how healthy I am. You may be able to change your diet to ensure that you consume sufficient quantities of Vitamin A. But if you think you can meet all of your nutritional needs for optimal health through diet - you may want to check out the food myth.

I am not a doctor - I cannot make medical recommendations. But in the case of Vitamin A, there is an easy out. You can consume beta-carotene, which your body uses to create Vitamin A as required. Beta-carotene is benign - it does not appear to be toxic even at extremely high levels of consumption. So you can safely change your diet, or supplement your diet to increase your intake of Beta-carotene, and ensure your Vitamin A consumption is not preficient.

How many other nutrients are essential to optimal health? We don't know for certain. What quantities are required for optimal health? For certain - we don't know.

Yours in health,
tracy
www.personalhealthfreedom.com

I Clap on Three and Five

2011-11-08T07:56:00.000-08:00

I have a lot of musical friends, some have posted "Friends don't let Friends Clap on One and Three".

In this blog, about HEALTH,

I clap on three and five.

People who clap on 2 and 4, assume I'm clapping on one and three. They're not listening. Some, who might clap on 1 and 3, think I'm with them. They're not listening either.

Of course it's more complicated. I write this blog about HEALTH.

There are two main camps in medicine (both often call themselves 'health') care. One, I call the "conventional medical community". Medical doctors.The other's call themselves "alternative health", they are the "alternative medicine community".

I'm clapping on 5, for health. Unfortunately, the health community does not exist. Each side assumes the health community is part of their community.

Conventional medical people think they're clapping on 2 and 4 - and try to help me join them.

Alternative health people think they are really the ones on 2 and 4 - and try to get me to join. On their 2 and 4, of course, because they are right.

Both complain when they hear me clapping on one and three. No-one hears me clapping on three and five. They hear me on three. And they hear me clap again, but they stopped counting at 4.

I clap on three and five.

It's the only way I can get my message across. My message is not the same as either side. Both think they hold the tune and the time, clapping 2 and 4. And my message is not on 1 and 3. It's different. My message can only be seen from a different place. When you are standing with either of the 2 and 4 groups you can't hear me.

I have noticed some curious effects as a result of clapping on three and five. One comment to a blog post, for example:

Started with: " Interesting post."
Then: " I don't think your point ... is correct"
And finished with: "I do agree..."

We started out clapping together, drifted apart and then joined up again. All in a single paragraph. All on a single subject.

Why do I clap on three and five?

My blog is about health. Everyone knows something about health. Unfortunately, most of what people know about health is actually NOT about health, it's about illness and disease.

So, I start talking about health, the hierarchy of health, disciplines of health, measurement of health, etc... - and people think I'm with them, on two and four. But, they are thinking about illness and disease. We're so close together. But so out of synchronization. We're sort of together on three. They just think I'm slightly off beat. And when I get to 5 - they think I've thrown a curve ball - or fallen off my rocker.

The fundamental concept, that all illness is caused by a deficiency or an excess - seems to trivial to be true, or too trivial to be useful. It is true, and useful. This simple concept, combined with the hierarchy of health, presents a completely new way to look at health. And thus, a new way to look at illness. And there's a problem.

The medical practitioners, and the alternative health practitioners are so busy looking at illness - they can't see health. And they have a lot invested in illness. Their entire lives and careers. They can't afford to see, or hear, or dance to new music about health.

Suddenly I clap on five. They are dancing in 4/4 time. There is no 5.

So, they hear me clapping on 1. But something's wrong. I'm not on one and three. I'm not on 2 and 4. I'm not a doctor. I'm not an alternative health practitioner.

I'm a retired systems analyst, with 30 years experience analyzing systems from the inside and the outside, making challenges and changes to objectives, goals, policies, procedures and processes in a bureaucratic organization that wants positive change at the same time as it resists change.

I'm a thinker, blogger, a writer, a student of health with a unique point of view, a unique sense of time and place and a unique sense of health. I'm on the outside, on three and five.

I believe we need to study health, before illness.

When 'medical practitioners' (either side), study 'health', they think of health as binary. Either you are healthy, or you are not. - eg. You are sick. When you are sick, they want to help you - and when you are healthy - they move on to someone else. This view of health is so ingrained that it permeates the future. In Star Trek - where the 'medical tricorder' measures only illness, and comes up blank if there is no illness.

This blog is about health. Not about illness. About health before illness.

This blog is about exploring the fundamental concepts of health - so that we can better understand illness.

And it's about freedom. The freedom we all need to make our own decisions. The freedom of knowledge and information that we need to support the best decisions. And the freedom to make mistakes. Right now, only doctors are allowed to make mistakes. That's very wrong.

The freedom to clap on three and five. Even if the best musicians know that 3 is wrong, and 5 does not exist.

For your health,
tracy
www.personalhealthfreedom.blogspot.com

The Wave of Awareness - Staving Injury - Saving Lives

2011-11-05T08:04:00.000-07:00

Whenever I walk across the street,
I'm ever so careful, to place my feet
Slowly, no running, not looking at stars,
And ever so careful to wave at the cars.
(apologies to Alan Alexander Milne)

When I cross the street, I make a point of waving. My 'wave of awareness'. I don't always get a wave back, but often, I get an acknowledgement, a nod - and most important, a brake.

When I drive, I am always thankful for a 'wave of awareness' from pedestrians.

They see me. They're paying attention. I feel a bit safer for them - we've connected via the wave. When pedestrians don't acknowledge my presence, or the fact that I slowed for them, I worry that the next driver might not be so careful. Sometimes, I'm worried the driver behind me has not seen them - and might crash into me as I slow down.

Wave please. It's safer for you. And me too. I don't want to run over anyone. I know the mantra 'look both ways before you cross the street'. And the driver's advice, 'watch out for pedestrians'. But I also know the dangers. Sometimes, when I'm driving - the sun is in my eyes. Or bright lights. Or rain or snow. I can't see everything. I drive carefully, but I'm always worried. What if a young child runs out in front of me without looking?

Just last week, a young schoolgirl stepped out from behind a bus - and was hit by a truck. She lived, but it was not pleasant. She didn't wave. He didn't wave.

We need to go beyond 'look both ways'.

To a 'wave of awareness'.

When you want to cross the street, even if you think the traffic is stopping - wave. Don't waive your safety.

If you are driving, and someone wants to cross - a wave back says you've seen them, and you are stopping. Flashing your lights can be a wave - it also says "OK, I see you, I'm stopping".

Connie Kaldor, one of my favorite singers; "I come from a land that is harsh and unforgiving. Winter snows can kill you, and the summer burn you dry." The pedestrian is outside, in the cold, or heat - and the driver is inside, usually warmer, or cooler. In my world, the person on foot should have the right of way.

Sometimes I find myself in a wave war. A nervous pedestrian wants me to go first. I do so, carefully. There may be a reason they want me to go first (they might be waiting to get into a car that is behind me). But someone behind them might step out, assuming that I am stopping.

Some drivers are very worried about hitting pedestrians. That's OK too. They too also wind up in a 'war of waves', each trying to push the other forward. First rule in a wave war? Smile! Every wave is a gesture of friendliness.

One winter, many years ago, I was driving around a traffic circle, and a group of young teens were running through the centre. They were not paying attention, and I slowed as I drove towards them - lucky for them, the traffic behind me slowed as well. One of them tripped on the curb, and fell onto the road in front of me. I stopped. When she got up, I waved. And she waved. I wished she had learnt the wave of awareness, I'd be happy to stop. She was embarrassed, I'm sure, but not badly hurt.

She looked. I looked. She thought she could get through before I got there - so she didn't stop. She didn't wave. She was talking to her friends, aware of the traffic, not aware of the curb. Lucky for her, and for me - I was paying attention, not eating, talking on my phone, or tuning the radio. A moment of in-attention could have led to disaster.

Teach your children well. Teach them to wave. And when they learn to drive - teach them to wave back.

What does the 'wave of awareness' look like? It's not just a wave. It's a wave of communications. A stiff arm at the crosswalk can be a wave - if it's friendly. You might intend to communicate that you are crossing, but if the driver is.... not alert, blinded by sun or bright lights, distracted... there will be no return wave - and danger.

A wave of awareness looks for a response.

The response might not be a full wave. A raised hand, a tip of the head, or a flash of headlights. No matter - the return wave says 'I see you, go ahead'. That too is a wave of awareness and communication.

If the traffic is already slowing or stopped - the wave is a thank you.

Of course you still need to be careful. Is the traffic already slowing? Has the driver really seen you? A thank you wave is always a good idea.

Is there traffic in the next lane? You may need to repeat the wave or look for a second or third acknowledgement. I grew up in a small town. Everybody waved to everybody. It works in the city too.

If you have the light, and the traffic is stopped, do you need to wave? Of course not, but it never hurts to say thank you. The wave of awareness is also a thank you.

But also, be aware... beware...

Even if you don't wave, it helps to 'think wave'. When you 'think wave', you look. Even when you have the light, and the traffic is stopped. The driver turning right can 'go after stopping' on a red light - if the way is clear. But that driver might be in a hurry. Might not stop every time, might not see you. That last lane, when you think you are almost safe - still needs a wave of awareness.

Watch out for that turning lane when you leave the curb as well. The driver may be looking left, for traffic and not see you, on the right. A wave of awareness, acknowledged, says it's OK to cross.

When driving, watch for the wave. When walking - wave. The wave of awareness, making friends, staving injury, saving lives. Don't rush to an accident.

yours in health, tracy
www.personalhealthfreedom.com

Is Listening to the Blues Healthy?

2011-11-03T17:01:00.000-07:00

Is listening to Blues Music Healthy? Is that such a strange question? Is it strange because the blues are often a complaining musical style - or is it because we don't really know what health is?

We have very poor techniques for measuring what is healthy, and what is unhealthy. Is there a way to measure health such that we can answer the question, or perhaps just explore the question "are the Blues healthy".

Health is very broad, rich and complex. And seldom measured. We tend to measure illness - and pretend we are measuring health. Even the futuristic Medical Tricorder on Star Trek appears to only measure illness. Health it seems is binary. Either you are, or you are not. Health is not measured.

But if it was measured, could we set up a study to determine if people who listen to the blues are healthier than those who don't - in the same community? I don't mean measure who is 'most likely to be sick'. A measurement of sickness is not a measure of health. Just ask anyone who got a clean 'bill of health' last week, and a death sentence this week. Shhhh... It happens.

So, is listening to the blues healthy? Or perhaps I should re-phrase the question. Is listening to the blues likely to increase, or to decrease your level of health? Think about it.

You can listen to the blues on your iPod, or radio, or computer, or... you might listen to blues music 'live'.

Let's confine our discussion to listening to live blues music. Is it healthy? Does it increase your health?

The hierarchy of health shows that health has hundreds, possibly thousands of components, in 10 layers, from genetics, through nutrition, cells, all the way up to healthy communities. Let's do a quick back of the envelope review.

Listening to the blues is unlikely to affect your genetic makeup. Although it might be good, or bad, for the genetic makeup of your future children.

Can listening to the blues affect your nutritional status? It might enhance your nutritional status - by getting you out to different places, in contact with different people - so you might eat more varieties of food than someone who does not listen to live blues music, or someone who just listens at home. Eating a wider variety of food improves your nutritional status.

Of course you can always have too much of a good thing. If you eat too much of any healthy food, even water, it becomes unhealthy. And I suppose it may be possible to listen to too much blues - neglecting other aspects of your health. But that's not the question we're asking.

Listening to live blues music is a social activity. Nutrition may be a social benefit. Of course for some people, listening to the blues may be an opportunity to drink a lot of alcohol - and avoid eating. So.. the jury is out. More study may be needed on the nutritional question.

How about cells, tissues, organs, systems and your body. Is listening to the blues good for your cells? Your body? Blues music is 'movement music'. It might not induce aerobic exercise, but it does get people's bodies up moving, maybe dancing, or at least swaying to the beat. Even though the lyrics may be angry, or unhappy - the beat, the rhythm, the energy inherent in the blues - gets your mojo working. Whatever that means, it sounds healthy to me!

What about your mind? It is well known that music exercises the mind. And blues music is no exception. It gets you singing along, exercising your brain as well as your lungs.

And it lifts your spirits. Strange, but true, hearing someone sing "my wife left me" or perhaps "my wife won't leave me alone" - can make you feel better. Your troubles are forgotten. You might forget about your pain while you listen to someone else's pain. It's like the perfect placebo - or the perfect drug - with no side effects. And not addictive.

And your community health? Listening to the blues is a social activity. Few people go out to listen to the blues - and then sit in the corner avoiding everyone. You meet people, discuss, build your community. Some people, I am sure, listen to the blues because of the community - and see it as more important than the music.

There are some who might argue that playing the blues is bad for your health. But I've seen only anecdotal evidence. Some well known blues musicians have drug or alcohol problems. But, I know blues musicians who don't drink, or don't drink excessively, for example. They just like playing the blues. Maybe, it's like anything else. If you spend too much time playing the blues, or listening to the blues - to the detriment of other healthy activities - your health will suffer. But a bit of blues is good for the mind, body, soul and community.

How much blues is good for your health? Enough, and maybe a bit more.

How much is too much?

It's personal - and it can change as you change, from day to day, week to week, year to year. Of course if you have a blues partner, this might be a more complex question.

to your health, tracy (heading out to get some blues tonight)

The concepts of Illness and Disease

2011-11-01T12:34:00.000-07:00

As we live, and love, and work to understand and improve our health, we encounter illness and disease. We should take some time to understand the concepts and causes of illness and disease. What is disease, what causes illness?

It's always worthwhile to check the dictionary - and you can spend a lot of time checking different dictionaries and definitions. I'll stick with Merriam-Webster.

Disease: trouble (obsolete); a condition of the living animal or plant or one of its part that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms; a harmful development (as in a social institution).

Illness: wickedness and unpleasantness (obsolete); an unhealthy condition of body and mind.

So, illness and disease can range from unhealthy bodily state, like a minor temporary dehydration caused by exercise, to a disease like cancer - which can kill an individual, to contagious disease that spreads through a population, to the diseases of crime and intolerance which can affect an entire society. The word illness seems a bit more restrictive - but I'll use both interchangeably.

What is the cause of disease?

The generalized cause of all disease, is a deficiency or an excess. Although this might seem trivial, it is an important concept to the understanding of health and disease.

We can see in the image, that the defined transition from health to disease is very gradual. The distinction moves very gradually from healthy to deficient, or from healthy to excessive. Of course a specific illnesses like a gunshot wound (excessive physical stress), can occur very quickly in time.
The specific cause determines the type and affects the severity of the disease.

A primary illness is one that has a single cause. A secondary illness is an illness that has two sequential causes, where the second cause is enabled by a primary illness. A complex illness is one that has more than one cause.

Another important distinction is the definition of a 'medical condition', which is diagnosed by a doctor based on specific symptoms and signs. A 'medical condition' is an illness or disease that passes a specific level of severity. Note: Merriam-Webster does not define medical condition, an online search for medical condition takes you to the definition for disease. This a slightly different diagram shows the significance of a medical condition.

Note added Dec 30, 2011 "You can see in the above diagram that health includes, and is larger than illness."

To illustrate the variability of illness, you might have a gunshot wound through the tip of your fingernail - an insignificant illness for most of us, to a gunshot wound scraping the skin, requiring a band-aid, to a flesh wound, requiring a diagnosis and treatment by a physician, to a mortal wound. Each is an excess of physical stress, from minor to fatal. A medical condition does not formally exist until a physician makes a diagnosis.

In my blog, I often use the term 'wide grey' to define the gradual shading change seen as we gradually move from perfectly healthy to a serious state of deficiency or excess. I've deliberately used a gunshot wound to demonstrate the transition, and also to give an example of an illness that is very visible throughout the transition. A medical condition is not a gray-scale. It must be diagnosed, so there is a hard line where the existence of a medical condition is created by a physician.

It is unlikely that you would have the symptoms of a gunshot wound and not know the cause. There are many symptoms of illness where you do not know the cause. And unless you are diagnosed by a physician, you might not know the name of the illness.

What is a symptom? Merriam-Webster is a bit confusing on this definition: subjective evidence of disease or physical disturbance; broadly : something that indicates the presence of bodily disorder; a slight indication. I say it is confusing for two reasons. Merriam-Webster's definition does not seem to recognize 'objective symptoms', which doctors generally seek for a more accurate diagnosis. Also, it appears to restrict symptoms to indications of 'bodily disorders', thus excluding mental disorders, social disorders, etc. Although the third definition is vague and general enough to cover everything, perhaps even the symptom of dawn light as a symptom of the coming sunrise.

From the health point of view, a symptom is an indication that health is less than optimal. Your health might be less than optimal - without symptoms. However, once you experience, or someone, for example a doctor, detects something indicating that your health is less than optimal - that something is a symptom.

The hierarchy of health defines the layers and components of health from an overall view. Each component of health can range from perfectly healthy to deficient or excessive.

Many illnesses, in minor or severe states, have similar symptoms. One of the most common symptoms is irritation or pain. It is important to remember that even the absence of pain can indicate an illness. Our sensations of irritation and pain can range from deficient to healthy to excessive.

As a result of the many hundreds, perhaps thousands of health components, and the overlapping of symptoms of illness, determining the cause of an illness is very complex.

Physicians can, and often do, diagnose the name of the illness, and prescribe treatment - without determining the cause. Treatment, especially in an emergency situation, is more important than understanding the cause.

Identifying the cause is primarily useful for prevention of illness and disease.

What is the difference between healthiness and illness?

I view health as a natural state. And illness as an unnatural state. And the transition, or wide grey area between health and illness as the way to measure health. It is important to measure health in order to study health scientifically. Most of today's 'studies' of health are actually studies of illness - a powerful perspective to deal with illness, but a very weak perspective to understand health.

Perfect health is unattainable. The WHO (World Health Organization) definition of health is not useful to understand health, because it defines 'perfect health', saying "Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being..." This state cannot be attained. Health must be measured. WHO spends lots of time and energy measuring illness - but health is not measured. I believe this is partly because the WHO definition of health does not encompass the ability to measure health.

Because perfect health is unattainable - we can always measure the health of any health component, the health of an individual and even the health of a community.

Health is measured as between 100 (perfection) and zero (non-existent). Health is the good stuff...

Illness is measured the other way. Illness is measured as zero (non-existent) to 100 (a confirmed diagnosis). Illness is the bad stuff.

Are healthiness and illness opposites, or opposite ends of the same scale of life? I don't look at it that way. Our medical systems focus entirely on illness. Only illness is measured, diagnosed and treated. Health is ignored, as if it only exists in perfection and as if nothing can be learned from studying health.

We should not confuse the good stuff (health) with the bad stuff (illness and disease).

I believe we must study health, separately from illness - to learn about health and improve our health.

That, in a nutshell, is the mission of this blog. We need personal health freedom so that we can study health, learn about health, understand health better, and experience and improve our health as a result.

to your health,
tracy
www.personalhealthfreedom.com

What is PAIN?

2011-10-31T07:13:00.000-07:00

A few years ago the book "Pain - the fifth vital sign, by Marni Jackson" in Greenwood books caught my eye. I spent a few minutes browsing and quickly concluded that - it has some interesting information and some serious flaws.

I decided not to buy. As I started working on this blog, I began to wonder whether the book had anything useful to say. I had forgotten what I saw as negatives. Over the weekend I picked up a copy to give it a second look. As I started to read again I got more and more irritated (pained?).

I figured out what had bothered me fairly quickly. The book takes the position that all pain is 'bad', to be cured or avoided. eg. There is no HEALTHY view of pain, only a medical ILLNESS paradigm.

There is no discussion of 'growing pains', nor 'healing pains'. No consideration or thought that pain can be good - as opposed to being simply useful. There is no discussion of the 'no pain, no gain' sports mantra (although it is mentioned in passing). There is no mention of 'healthy pain' from stretching, or from exercise, or simply from over-stimulation or release from over-stimulation.

As I drove home last night, I saw a bulletin board stating: "Pain, the best instructor - but nobody wants to go to class", advertising Taekwondo. I realized that there is more to 'no pain, no gain' than meets the eye. I am certain that no-one becomes a world class athlete without experiencing pain. Sometimes this pain is bad, indicating physical damage. But other times it is a sign of a healthy workout - stretching abilities to a new level, and resulting in the ability to run faster, jump higher, swim faster -- without pain.

Your teacher, your boss, your coach - and your inner motivator, can be a pain. Pushing you to new levels, new abilities, new pleasures. When you lose a game, you might feel pain. This pain can push you, help you grow in many different directions. You might be motivated to concentrate harder, work harder and play better. You might decide this game is not for you - and avoid the pain. Or you might learn to accept the pain and enjoy the game, as a challenge, or as an intellectual and social game - smiling, laughing, discussing, remembering. When your opponent wins - you experience pleasure knowing that you will win next time.

There is also no discussion of the (wide grey) distinction between irritation (an itch, for example) and a pain. Is an itch a pain or a pleasure? Some itches are pleasurable. Some are painful. And sometimes, an itch can move from pleasure to pain, or from pain to pleasure. Does scratching result in pleasure? or relief? or pain? - or all three? If something, or someone, is annoying me - at what point does it become a pain?

For example, I'm going to sleep, but not going to sleep. My body is feeding my brain a series of small irritations as my senses settle down. In my experience, if I focus my attention on an annoyance, it grows. Sometimes I can divert my attention elsewhere, maybe by counting sheep - and it goes away. But sometimes it intrudes until I scratch it away, or shift my position a bit - and then a new sensation starts to grow and annoy. These pains are, presumably, natural and always there - below the surface. They only appear when I rest my senses. The deaf symbol for 'boring' is a sign for picking your nose - and I find that while I am waiting for the streetlight to change, I feel an irritation in my nose. Is that pain always there, below my sensory perception?

When I do my Tai Chi, or when I swim, I often feel small stabs of pain. These are the pains of healthy movement, stretching, activation. Sometimes I wonder if a specific pain is an indication of something dangerous - but most often I realize these are healthy pains. My body is thanking me for moving. I can mentally shift these pains to the 'good' category, and feel good about them. I know that if I linger on a pain, even a health pain, it can move to an excessive, or unhealthy pain. So I try not to linger - and it goes away. Sometimes when I am exercising, or even just moving around, even just typing, I feel a small 'sensation' - and I am not even certain if it is a sensation, or a pain.

Is the book interesting? Yes. Useful? Yes. Incomplete? Yes. It is a book about pain, that ignores more than half of the true view of pain.

Pain can be deficient, healthy or excessive:

And pain is more complex. Pain is subjective. Pain can be an indicator of damage from the past or problems in the present, or fears of the future. A few simple examples of the complexity of pain:

Many of our sensory systems can experience pain. Not just our sense of touch. Extremely loud sounds can cause pain. Extremely bright lights can cause pain. Spicy hot foods can cause pain in the mouth's taste sensors and nose's smell sensors. Interestingly, people who do not feel pain also do not have a sense of smell. Can your sense of balance, eg. dizziness cause pain? I'm not sure, but pain can cause dizziness. But wait, there's more...

Young children often experience pain when they hear very loud noises - noises that might seem normal to an adult. These noises might be damaging the hearing systems of the young children. Elderly adults lose their sense of hearing, especially higher tones, and might not hear noises that cause pain to and harm young children. Elderly adults may suffer from tinnitus pain caused by exposure to loud noises. And teenagers, listening to loud music, might actually enjoy noise so loud that it permanently damages their hearing.

The elderly adult's hearing system might be pain deficient to high tones that damage young children, pain normal to mid-tones that are too loud, and suffer excessive pain from tinnitus, caused by previous exposure to loud noises - ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

The entire book views pain as excessive - pain deficiencies and healthy pain are hardly acknowledged. This is understandable given the author's initial motivation - a bee-sting in the mouth, and her subsequent investigations - with medical professionals who 'deal with pain' on a daily basis.

Pain lies. My osteopath tells me that 'pain lies, but it lies consistently'. She also reminds me that if she is not causing pain - maybe she's not doing any good. A pain in my thumb and wrist might be caused by a muscle tension in my back - a lie, but it is possible to locate the source, with time and effort, because the pain does not 'jump around'. It follows a well defined path. Pain is a very effective diagnostic if used well; unfortunately - and frequently in this book, it is simply something to be avoided, or eliminated.

Pain is a healthy reaction to stress. It is a tool that teaches us to be more careful. In specific situations, pain is generally bad. But in general, pain is good. We all need pain to live normal healthy lives.

Are we in a healthy state when we are 'feeling no pain'? We might be asleep, or dead to the world or high on drugs.

Or we might be high on life.

We also need to learn about, study and try to understand a 'healthy level of pain'. How can you know what are your healthy levels of pain? It's personal.

I'll be 59 in a few weeks, and I've heard that if you are over 50, and you don't feel any pain, you might be dead. Lucky for me - I do feel pain.

I made a point of reading the book - I even took out my pen and marked some areas of interest. All in all, it is a very interesting book, well written, containing lots of interesting and useful information. It is written from a medical view, rather than a health view and thus is very different from what you will encounter on my blog. In my mind - it is a very incomplete view of the complexity of pain.

I believe in Personal Health Freedom. I believe in my right to 'not feel pain', and in my right to 'feel my pain'. I also believe in my right to change my mind. Knowing full well that

change can be a pain.

yours in health, and in pain,
tracy
www.personalhealthfreedom.com

Primary Illness and direct causes of illness

2011-10-28T17:20:00.000-07:00

View Diagram full Size

Some illnesses are complex, the result of multiple causes. However, many are simple or trivial to understand, although they might not be trivial to treat or cure. Simple, or primary illnesses are those that have a single cause. The value in understanding these illnesses is in our ability to prevent them, once we understand the cause.

Secondary illnesses are illnesses that have sequential causes. Complex illnesses are those that have multiple causes.

The basic primary illnesses flow right out of the hierarchy of health. Because each of the layers in the hierarchy is dependent on the health of the layer below, a health deficiency, or excess in one layer can cause an illness in a higher layers, in other components of the same layer - and even, in exceptional circumstances in layers below.

So, the first list of primary causes of illness is the list of components in the hierarchy of health: genetics, nutrients, cells, tissues, organs, systems, body, mind, spirit and community - in deficiency or excess.

If this list seems short, remember that nutrition alone has over 100 components that are critical to health. We don't have a comprehensive list for nutrients. Nor do we have a comprehensive list for cells, when we recognize that some of the cells essential to health are bacteria that contribute to health.

A specific deficiency in nutrition might cause scurvy - which affects cells, bones, organs and systems, but only when it becomes severe. Before that point, it is just a deficiency.

Technically, an illness is something that can be diagnosed, and sometimes treated. A simple excess or deficiency might not be sufficient to cause an illness. There must be significant severity, and possibly duration, for an illness to develop and be diagnosed.

To this list, we can add other deficiencies and excesses. A deficiency, or excess of growth can lead directly to illness. There may be a 'deeper cause' of the growth deficiency or excess, making the illness a 'secondary illness', caused by one health issue, which caused another health issue. However, if the excess growth leads directly to the illness - it can be classified as a direct cause of illness, even it it is not the primary cause. In this case, the illness does not have a primary cause.

A primary cause of illness exists when a single deficiency or excess is the only cause of an illness. Vitamin C deficiency is the primary cause of scurvy. A bullet in the shoulder can be the primary cause of a flesh wound.

A direct cause of illness exists when a single deficiency or excess is directly responsible for the illness. If that cause had prevented, or removed removed in time, the illness would not have occurred.

All primary causes of illness are direct causes of illness. Direct causes are not necessarily primary causes.

Can we create a list that categorizes all primary causes of illness? All direct causes of illness? I don't know, but I have created a list that covers a majority. I'll be happy to add to the list if you can tell me something I've missed.

Each individual cause of illness, primary, direct, or secondary is the deficiencies and excesses of some component of health. To the list of health components from the hierarchy of health, we should add:

The six senses: vision, hearing, touch, smell, taste and balance. A deficiency or excess of any of these senses may indicate illness and may cause further illnesses.

Pain: a deficiency or excessive ability to feel pain may indicate illness and may cause further illnesses.

Growth: a deficiency or excess of growth may indicate illness and may cause further illnesses.

Healing: a deficiency or excess of healing which includes the immune system, repair systems and growth systems may indicate illness and may cause further illnesses.

Stress: a deficiency or excess of stress may indicate illness and may cause further illnesses.

Like the components of health, each of these causes of illnesses is necessary to health. Illness appears when they are deficient, or when they are in excess.

With any illness, if we can clearly identify a single direct cause, we can work directly to prevent and possibly to cure the illness.

Primary prevention (or direct prevention) of illness is an action that directly tackles the primary causes of illness. This is a fundamental health concept of prevention.

However, take care when reading the latest health news. You might read that red wine has been shown in statistical studies to prevent heart disease. Ask yourself, is this a primary prevention? Does it prevent specific types of heart disease - those caused by a deficiency of red wine, in every case? If so, then it is a primary preventative. If not - it is a statistically possible preventative but not a primary preventative.

This important concept, of primary, or direct illness, and primary or direct preventatives is very powerful. If we have a primary preventative - then searching health for the hint of an illness - before a full blown illness develops, might be combined with the preventative to eliminate cases of the illness.

This can be especially effective for any illness where a cause results in minor health issues in the short term - but serious issues in the long term.

At present, we tend to focus our 'health' care on diagnosed illness, not on health. So we tend to ignore causes that take a long time to develop into a diagnosed illness. I'm not discussing 'cancers caused by smoking'. Rather, I'm wondering what illness might be caused by a low level deficiency of a single nutrient, or a combination of nutrients - when the deficiency exists for years or decades.

We need a better understanding, and better studies of primary illnesses and direct illness so we can learn more about health - and how to improve health. With this understanding we might learn the causes of some illnesses that are mysteries today.

Yours in health,
tracy
www.personalhealthfreedom.com

Udo's Oil? Mercola's Oil?

2011-10-28T09:52:00.000-07:00

Today Dr Mercola posted a note about krill oil that is marketed under his name. I'm not complaining, just explaining. We all need to make a living.

I often see Mercola's articles on krill oil - and I have often wondered how krill oil compares, from a health perspective, from Udo's Oil. It is my opinion that Udo's Oil is thoroughly a researched health product, not a medicine. Dr Mercola tends to take a medical view point, he is a doctor after all, more often than a health viewpoint.

You can view the article here:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/28/astaxanthin-makes-fish-oil-work-better.aspx?e_cid=20111028_DNL_art_2

Here are the comments I left on Dr Mercola's blog, although I don't really expect a response - he seldom responds to comments.
===================================================================

I have often seen Dr Mercola's comments about krill oil, and wondered if it is worth pursuing for my health, and it is good to learn more with this article - and comments by others about krill oil and astaxanthins.

I always try to look at health from a health point of view, not a medical view - and to my eye, this article tends more towards a medical viewpoint, saying things like "beneficial effects on cardiovascular health, inflammation, mental health, and neurodegenerative diseases". We need a health paradigm to support our search for personal health freedom: http://personalhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2011/01/health-paradigm.html

Omega 3 oils are essential nutrients, not medicines and we should study them as nutrients. I highly recommend reading "Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill", by Udo Erasmus, to learn more about health and unhealthy fats.

Astaxanthins are not essential nutrients, and can only be viewed as toxins, remember of course that "many toxins are beneficial in specific situations" - written after I've had my morning cup of coffee.

Dr Mercola offers us Krill oil and endorses it under his own label. I'm not criticizing - we all need to make a living. Dr Mercola is an expert in Omega 3 oils. I respect his opinion and advice.

Udo Erasmus has a PhD in Nutrition, and offers us "Udo's Oil", from a balanced health viewpoint in addition to a 'medical' viewpoint.

Udo's oil provides three essential oils, Omega 3, Omega 6 and Omega 9. Krill oil contains, according to Mercola, krill oil provides "provides 14 percent EPA and DHA", which I believe do not exist in Udo's Oil Blend. Udo does offer a DHA oil blend for vegetarians who do not get DHA from foods.

I would like to see Dr Mercola review the research on Udo's oil, for his own personal knowledge. I would love to see Dr Mercola working with Udo Erasmus to pool their knowledge and resources - and improve our health.
====================================================================

Yours in health, tracy
http://personalhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/p/subject-index.html

Hierarchy of Health - Primary and Secondary Disciplines

2011-10-27T15:48:00.000-07:00

Health is defined as: “the combined state of physical, mental and social well being”

The primary disciplines of health can be derived in a hierarchical fashion from the foundations of life.

Genetics is the foundation of health. Health begins with genetics, as does life. There is no genetically perfect human - by design. Genetics must vary the elements in development of life to guard against toxins, viruses, bacteria, and other real and potential stressors.

Nutrition is the next layer in the hierarchy of health. Genetics require appropriate nutrients to develop in the first place. The continued development of life requires many nutrients. As life becomes more complex - human life is very complex - nutrition also becomes more complex.

Nutrition is the foundation of health freedom. We have little control over our genetics. We have significant control over our nutrients. I believe we need significantly more control over our nutrients.

Cells are the next step in the development of life. Cells are complex organisms made up of a variety of chemical (nutrient) components with a genetic core. The first cellular organisms were able to live on their own. Gradually they developed cooperation with other types of cells. The human body contains over 100 different types of cells, many of which are living, growing, reproducing and dying at any time. Healthy cells are a fundamental element of health. Cellular health is dependent on genetic and nutritional health.

Tissues are colonies of similar cells, working together for a common function. Muscle tissue, connective tissue, nerve tissue, etc. Tissue health is the next fundamental element of health. Tissue health is dependent on genetic health, nutritional health and cellular health.

Organs are structures consisting of two or more types of cells cooperating for a higher purpose. Your heart, lungs, and skin are organs that contribute to your health. Organ health is dependent on all prior layers of health.

Systems are composed of two or more organs, working together to provide a higher function. Your circulatory system is composed of your heart, blood vessels and blood. System health is a higher level of health that is also dependent on each of the preceding layers.

Body is the final physical component of health. Your body consists of all of the genetics, nutrients, cells, organs and systems needed for life. The health of your body is dependent on the health of each of those components.

Mind is a component of health that rises above the body. The mind is more than just a calculator, or just an awareness. Or mind re-minds us to eat when we are hungry, to hunt when we have no food, and learns to store food and eventually to farm so that we can plan for food in the future. The mind is rich and varied - in animals, the mind of a predator is very different from the mind of a prey animal. People can be of many different minds. A health mind is essential to overall health, and a health mind is dependent on all of the preceding elements.

Spirit rises above the simple calculations and planning of the mind. Although animals might not have spirituality, they definitely have spirit. The spirit and spirituality of humans is rich and complex. A health spirit is essential to optimal health.

Community, people working together, helping each other. At the simplest level, mothers raising children. Human children are very dependent on their community and will die without support. As we grow and develop, so do our many communities. Communities are a valuable component of health - not only that - healthy communities contribute to maintain and improve health through each of the elements, from genetics, nutrition, cells through to more healthy communities.

These are the fundamental elements of health: genetics, nutrients, cells, tissues, organs, systems, body, mind spirit and community. In the study of health, this is where we start.

Although medical textbooks cover the basics of genetics, nutrition, cells, tissues, organs, systems, bodies, minds and communities, we seldom study them with a health optimization goal. Their goals tend towards 'if they are ill, we need to fix it', otherwise 'you are healthy and do not need medical assistance'. There are some attempts to improve health for high level athletic competition, but it is aimed at improving strength, endurance, etc. sometimes to the detriment of overall health.

I believe health must be measured, on a scale of 1 to 10, for example if statements about health are to be of any value. Our current binary view of health - either healthy or sick - is a poor tool for health optimization. Measuring health on a broader scale will increase our information about health and also contribute to our knowledge of illness.

Each of these elements has an effect on the others. Combined effects can potentially be very, very complex. It is worthwhile to enumerate and study the secondary components of health that can be generated by simple combinations of the above.

This chart diagrams the primary disciplines of health, and the first level combinations, to create a graphic of the primary and secondary disciplines of health. Click this text to see a full size view. .

Again we see many familiar studies from medical research. But not from health research. And some interesting items appear that maybe haven't been thought about before, in a comprehensive health view. Spirit and Cells, for example. How might the health of your cells affect your spirituality? How might your spirituality affect the health of your cells. There is much more here than a first glance reveals.

Yours in health, and personal health freedom
tracy
www.personalhealthfreedom.com

The Food Myth - the Reader's Digest Version

2011-10-26T13:58:00.000-07:00

In April 2010, Readers Digest Canada published an article titled “6 Myths and Facts about Vitamin Supplements.” How many did they get right? Read on and test your knowledge.

In Europe in the late 1600s, it was a well known fact that 'swans are white', and it could be stated as fact that 'black swans do not exist'. In 1697, a black swan was discovered in Australia - and that fact became myth.

The 'black swans do not exist' theory was destined to fail.

Statements like 'all swans are white', and 'there are no black swans' are logically flawed - they cannot be proven true - and they are proven false by a single example. Moral: watch out for 'black swan theories' pretending to be facts. There are many black swan theories in health.

The article title is ‘6 myths and facts’, it actually finishes with a 7th, as a fact: “Truth: the best way to get your vitamins is by eating them” – of course they mean ‘in food as opposed to supplements’. Note, this 7th item has been removed from the online version is now titled "5 Vitamin Truths and Lies", but there are still 6 on the list. My guess is that the editor simply removed 1, and then assumed that the original title was correct - and also removed one from the title without counting. I have copies of the original online version as well as the current online version. Are you confused yet?

The statement 'the best way to get your vitamins is through food’ is a black swan theory. It is a common misconception, often supported by well meaning doctors, nutritionists and writers who view health through a medical veil.

In fact, it has been proven false over and over again. Supplements have scientifically proven to be better than food in specific cases, over and over again. Food may be better 'in general', but it is not 'the best way' in all cases. Many of these research results have been well publicized, even in Readers Digest. Still the Food Myth ‘the best way to get your vitamins is through food’ persists. The best way to get your vitamins is with a combination of foods and supplements. Unfortunately - we don't know the best combination, and it depends on the food, and the supplements available.

To clarify, We can try to define food. And supplements. No easy task. Is an apple food, or an orange? No problem. Food. How about chicken? Sure, food - usually.

For the moment, let's ignore the fact that grocery store apples, oranges and chickens are highly 'produced' for large quantity, low price and extended shelf life - and are very different from naturally occurring apples, oranges and chickens.

Orange Juice? Sure, well maybe - food. Today's 100 percent orange juice is highly processed to extend shelf life, and we don't know the effects of that processing on the food value. Tang? Hmmm... Is Tang a food, or a supplement. Or both? Tang contains sugar (a non-food?), as well as supplemental Vitamin C, Calcium, Vitamin E, Riboflavin, Niacin and Vitamin B6. The sugar free version contains aspartame. Tang sounds like a ‘supplement’ to me. Of course ‘Kraft Foods’, who sell Tang, refer to it as a ‘food product’. But, I believe, if I sold Tang, or the ingredients in Tang in a tablet, it would be called a ‘multi-vitamin'.

Now picking on Tang is perhaps a but unfair. But Tang is just one shade of a large grey between the black and white of food vs supplements.

How about eggs. Are your eggs factory eggs? Or grain fed eggs? Or omega eggs? Or farm eggs? What were the hens fed? Were they given antibiotics? Hormones to increase production? Were they allowed outdoors? Did they get sunshine? Which eggs are natural? Which are supplemented?

First on the article's list: ‘Myth: A multi-vitamin can make up for a bad diet’ is supported by the statement ‘many packaged foods are vitamin-enriched’. So.... It’s good for packaged foods to contain supplements – but not for me to choose my supplements? Sounds like the old saw "do what I say, not what I do....' Do I know the composition, quality and amounts of supplements in supplemented foods? Do I have control of the composition, quality and amounts?

Of course the article is talking about ‘tablets’. But even on tablets there are serious errors and omissions.

The next ‘Myth: Vitamin C is a cold fighter’ is supported by statements like ‘kids might go from 28 days of runny noses to 24 per year’. So, Vitamin C decreases the time that children have symptoms, but it's not a cold fighter. According to the article, both are true at the same time. Note: Research reported in Reader's Digest in July 2009 - concluded that Vitamin E is a cold and flu fighter. Not mentioned in this article.

Number 3 “Vitamin Pills can prevent heart disease” is presented as a Myth. Here we have a clear ‘black swan statement’. It cannot be proven true. It can only be proven false. A few trials have been done, with a few isolated vitamins, to measure their effect on heart disease. So far, haven’t found a vitamin, or a vitamin combination that prevents heart disease in clinical trials. People believed there were ‘no black swans’, because none had been discovered. If, or when we learn what vitamins do prevent heart disease – this myth will be forgotten. Until then, it is simply an unproven theory. There is no scientific evidence to support the theory that ‘Vitamin pills do not prevent heart disease’. Vitamin pills range from simple - single vitamins to complex mixture of vitamins, minerals, herbs, etc. Before you can state that Vitamin Pills can prevent heart disease is a MYTH, you must test every past, present and future formulation.

And can heart disease be prevented by any food or supplement? Until we know the cause of heart disease, attempts to 'prevent' heart disease are just guesses. We might as well test eye of newt and tongue of frog to see if they prevent heart disease.

I prefer a health view, not a medical view. I believe we need to know what foods and what supplements ENABLE and IMPROVE HEART HEALTH.

Number 4: “Myth: Taking vitamins can protect against cancer’. Do you detect a pattern here? Another general statement, made without scientific evidence. There is some scientific evidence that some vitamins in some situations did not protect against cancer. But to generalize those results to all vitamins, all cancers and create a ‘myth’ is not just unscientific, it is ridiculous.

How are we doing so far? Of four (or is it five) ‘myths and facts’ out of six (or is it seven?), Reader’s Digest has delivered incorrect conclusions based on faulty logic, missing facts and by presenting misleading information.

Myth number 5 is “Hey, it cant’ hurt” hmmm... It looks like they’ve actually found a real fact, or two or three. We think that taking supplements can’t hurt – and the author provides a few (three) examples where they can ‘increase your risk’. Of course two of the three apply only to ‘high doses of’ – not normal supplemental amounts. And the third example? Be afraid, very afraid. If you are a smoker, and you think taking beta-carotene will decrease your risk of lung cancer – it will actually increase your risk. So, keep smoking, but don’t take supplements - is that what Reader’s Digest is advising? The truth is, any food, and any supplement CAN HURT, taken at the wrong time, or in incorrect amounts. You might as well say 'drinking lots of water can't hurt' is a myth. It's a useless statement.

It should be clear by now that the Reader's Digest article is not trying to present facts, not trying to present science, and not trying to improve your health. The mission is simple - to dissuade you from taking multi-vitamins. Or is it just to catch your eye with a fancy list - so you buy the magazine?

Number 6: ‘Truth: Vitamin D is worth taking’. Mythed by a mile. Yes, Vitamin D is sometimes worth taking. But the way it is presented - as if the only vitamin worth taking as a supplement is Vitamin D - is certainly not true. One need only look back, and forward, in Reader's Digest's - to find many examples of supplements 'worth taking'.

Nor does the section on Vitamin D attempt to present the facts in a scientific, or honest journalistic manner. What are the facts on Vitamin D? The truth about the best source of Vitamin D? The jury is out.

In fact, most of the studies that encourage use of Vitamin D are not actually Vitamin D studies. They are sunshine studies. Sunshine is worth taking. We don't know all of the effects that sunshine has on our bodies - we do know that it increases our Vitamin D levels, and that it has other effects. It increases our health in many ways. But the leap of faith that gives credit to Vitamin D, and not to sunshine - is an example of our medical paradigm in action. Vitamin D gets credit because it is simple, because you can sell it. We need a health paradigm, not a medical paradigm.

The natural source of Vitamin D is sunlight. But there are people, including those who sell hats, umbrellas and sunscreen - who would like you to avoid sunlight. No-one is selling 'walks in the park' - so few people are actively marketing sunlight for health. There is no marketing incentive to find the truth on this question. Vitamin D is found in some foods and Vitamin D supplements are also inserted into many foods in Canada. Are you getting confused yet?

The article does not mention essential minerals, nor essential oils. There are over 100 nutrients essential to health - and it is extremely difficult, to get the right amounts of each of them in a 'healthy diet'. Johns Hopkins Health says Calcium Supplements Still Count. I see the link, which previously sent me to the report, now sends me to their bookstore. This information is valuable enough for Johns Hopkins to charge for it.

The biggest error, in my opinion, is their support for ‘The Food Myth’. The next time anyone, or some article says ‘the best way to meet all of your nutritional needs is thru food’ – just ask

“Which scientific study came to that conclusion?”

And wait... And wait... Because there is no way to prove the statement. The best way is to do your own research and make your own decisions. And to take responsibility for your own health.

I’ll continue to take (and recommend) my personal supplement choice, twice a day.

I believe in Personal Health Freedom. I believe that the best way to get your vitamins, minerals and other essential nutrients is through personal choice.

I believe that "The best way to get all of your nutrient needs is through a combination of foods and supplements".

The article does NOT speak about health, only about illness. The article is presented as facts and myths about vitamin supplements. There is no discussion of health, nor how to improve your health. There are some suggestions about avoiding illness. But if you read my blog, you know that I see a large difference between illness and health.

There is NO definitive evidence on how to best improve your health. It's up to you to decide what actions to take. It's up to your governments and reporters to ensure that you have the freedom to choose, and the best knowledge available at the time to aid your decisions. We need full disclosure of food and supplement ingredients so we can each make the best decisions for ourselves.

Yours in health, and health freedom, tracy
www.personalhealthfreedom.com

I have published two previous blogs on The Food Myth and the Food Myth - Clarification

I am not a Doctor

2011-10-21T12:31:00.000-07:00

In a recent thread, I was advised that 'you are not a doctor'... I think it was meant as a criticism.

I am not a doctor. I want to make this perfectly clear. I do not have a degree and I am not a medical practitioner. And I don't want to be. I am also not a scientist, who does research and publishes papers in recognized journals.

What am I? I am, I believe, a relatively intelligent person with a very different point of view.

Doctors and alternative medical practitioners look at life and health through their medical practice. They see things through what I call a 'lens of illness'. The job of a doctor is to diagnose illness and prescribe treatments. When a doctor rises in the hierarchy to an administrative role - their job rises to encompass the structures that help doctors do a better job.

I believe the best thing about doctors is their ability to diagnose and treat illness. And I believe their greatest weakness is an inability to see the forest for the trees - the inability to see health for disease.

My blog is about health, not illness. This is a bit of a challenge to explain, because when doctors speak about health - they look through their illness lens. We have Health Systems - that treat illness. We have Health Insurance - that insures against illness. And health is generally defined as 'lack of illness'. So when people read my blog posts - the natural instinct is to think in terms of illness, to look through a 'lens of illness'. Few people have practiced looking through a 'lens of health'.

I look at the world, and even at medicine, through a health lens.

I start from the presumption that we can and must study health without reference to illness, if we are to gain a fundamental understanding of health. Can you imagine what the field of engineering might look like, if we studied engineering based on what to do when bridges fall down? If a bridge was judged to be 'healthy' or 'broken'. With no middle ground? My hierarchy of health and associated chart of health disciplines of study, makes no reference to illness. Health comes first. Illness comes later.

When I do speak about illness, it is from a health perspective, not a medical perspective. Medical doctors, often in emergency mode, look at illness as something to be treated or cured. I look at illness from a health perspective. I see illness as imbalances in health, or caused by imbalances in health. I have grouped the primary causes of illness into six areas of deficiency or excess - basically imbalances of health. When I encounter illness, I think about causes, not about solutions, I think about healing, not about curing. I leave treatments and cures to the doctors - who have well defined systems for that purpose.

I do believe, of course, that doctors, alternative medicine practitioners, and other so called 'health professionals' will benefit from a health perspective, or health lens - when looking at illness and at people who are ill.

I have studied health for many years. I remember being shocked when I first viewed a very old copy of the Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR), a guide to prescription drugs. Shocked because there was no structure. No foundation of health (or of illness) was provided. I started to search for a foundation to understand health - and over 10 years or more I found none. So I wrote one.

I blogged it in January 2010 - and revised it in July 2010 to create the hierarchy of health. I have looked, but not yet seen any alternative, or competitor to my hierarchy, which extends from basic nutrients to health communities.

My blog is an exploration of the ideas that flow from the hierarchy and from a 'health lens'.

When I look through my 'health lens', I see words like health, illness, treatment, cure, heal and pain in a very different light. To be honest, I see few answers - but I do see many important questions that have never been asked. I believe these questions will help us to understand and improve our health.

One of the most important questions that arises again and again is "how can we measure health?". Many references define health as 'not sick'. Health is viewed as 100 percent, or sick. We often see statements like "She was perfectly healthy - but last week she was diagnosed with cancer." But we know it takes many years to develop cancer. I see health as a scale, not an absolute. A complex scale of health measurements needs to be developed if we are to understand health. I think about this often and blog about it occasionally. How can we measure nutritional health? Cellular health? Why are people judged as healthy - and then diagnosed as 'dying' shortly afterwards?

Another important question is "What nutrient amounts can contribute to optimizing health?" I view nutrients as the foundation of health and the primary preventative and treatment for illnesses. We have well developed definitions of the nutrient amounts to prevent illness, but very little (I can't find any) research into nutrients contribution to optimize health. This can be expected - because we don't measure health, so we cannot know how to optimize it.

In my research, I often encountered the food myth. The concept that we can best improve our health by eating the right foods. Irregardless of the facts that many foods contain supplements, that many contain toxins, that many so called foods contain little or no nutrient value - and most important, many studies have demonstrated that optimal health cannot be obtained through a normal healthy diet. Pregnant mothers are advised to take supplements for the health of their babies - to improve their health. And recent studies show that many women need to improve their health levels BEFORE they get pregnant. We all have new cells, developing and growing every day. They need to be as healthy as possible to contribute to our health. It's time to bust the food myth once and for all.

My blog is also about freedom, personal health freedom. My research into health freedom was very discouraging. Many people who write about health freedom have an axe to grind. From alternative practitioners who want freedom to market their treatments, to people who worry about the security of their health information. These people have valid points of view, valid arguments, and bring excellent information to the discussion. But none of them addresses the fundamentals of health freedom.

So, I did a bit of research into fundamentals of freedom, and wrote a Universal Declaration of Health Freedom. Along the way I made two interesting discoveries about freedom that are worth review. First, fundamental rights DO NOT come with responsibilities attached. Only non-fundamental rights come with responsibilities. Second, one of the most commonly cited rights, the right to own property, is not a fundamental right - because it comes with responsibilities attached.

I saw that the right to life and liberty are fundamental. And added the right to pursuit of healthiness. There were many choices available to phrase this right - I chose the simplest to provide support for my personal beliefs.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of healthiness.

I see many restrictions on our rights to health - and frankly I am shocked at the inconsistencies that currently exist. I believe that all restrictions on health and health actions need to be founded on solid science, clearly published - and open to challenges. At present we have many health restrictions that are totally arbitrary and almost impossible to challenge. Like the Teddy Bear that contains a pouch of white rice, banned, confiscated and impounded - because ???

I am not a doctor. I am not a lawyer. I am a retired computer systems analyst, with 30 years experience analyzing systems from the inside and the outside - seeing the forest and the trees - making challenges and changes to goals, objectives, policies and procedures in a bureaucratic organization that wants to move forward and doesn't like change. I am a retired computer geek, a former toastmaster, a chessplayer who reached candidate master strength at my peak. A volunteer. A photographer. Someone who loves music, travel, horses, nature, swimming, biking, Tai Chi and new experiences, but does not own a television.

I am one man with a strange point of view - through my health lens - and some very strong beliefs that result from that view.

I believe in health, and health freedom. I am
yours in health,
tracy
www.personalhealthfreedom.com

Measuring Health vs Flu Vaccine

2011-10-17T08:23:00.000-07:00

If only we could measure health...

Our medical systems only measure illness. In the hierarchy of health, from nutrition to immune system to community health, we measure illness, not health.

If we could measure immune system health, we would have a powerful tool to measure the need for, and the effectiveness of flu vaccines.

When you take a flu vaccines you are basically a guinea pig, a medical test subject - because flu vaccines are continually re-designed as flu virus evolves. Unfortunately - the statistics of your reactions to the vaccine, and statistics of your preventative experience, are very poorly tracked - if they are tracked at all.

In Dr Mercola's latest post, he suggests that improving the health of your immune system is more appropriate than taking the flu vaccine.

If someone's immune system health is high - there might be no need for a flu vaccine, not matter how old they are. And, if someone with a strong immune system is given a flu vaccine - their statistical result should be separated from those who have weak immune systems.

We might learn answers to some interesting questions.

1. Do flu vaccines protect people with weak immune systems? In theory - they might not, because the weak immune system might respond poorly to a vaccine.

2. Do flu vaccines protect people with strong immune systems? We can hypothesize that they might not give any additional protection - because the strong immune system is already a strong flu protection. Or it might give protection, because the immune system learns from the vaccine. In this case we should compare the side effects of the vaccine to the 'extra benefit' to see if the vaccine is worthwhile.

3. Do flu vaccines protect people with healthy, but not strong immune systems? We don't know - and if we continue with the medical paradigm we will never know. We need a health paradigm, not a medical paradigm.

4. Many illnesses have a primary cause. What is the primary cause of flu in most people? Is the primary cause of the flu - the flu virus? Or is a weak immune system the primary cause? If we could measure the health of our immune systems - and track that against the flu - we might answer this question. And we would know which technique - flu virus or immune system improvement - is the most appropriate.

If we could measure the health of someone's immune system, we could also study and answer questions about actions that strengthen or weaken the immune system. We might better understand why zinc lessens the length of common cold symptoms. Does zinc improve the health of the immune system?

We can also learn to distinguish between the effects of 'stimulant foods' on the immune system - which boost activity and healthy foods - which boost the actual health of the system. Then we could separate techniques to improve our health from techniques we might use to treat a cold or flu. Does propolis improve the health of the immune system - or just the activity level?

We can also learn more about the effects of specific toxins on our immune system. This could lead to some very interesting results. We might, for example, learn that the flu vaccine components boost flu protection, but the toxins in the vaccine hurt the immune system - resulting in zero net gain.

Is it better to improve our immune systems - or to take a vaccine? We should first learn to measure our immune systems - and then we can answer these complex questions. Taking a 'newly formulated' flu vaccine is a huge risk, with a very weak scientific foundation.

Yours in health,
tracy
Personal Health Freedom

I won't donate to a Cure for Cancer

2011-10-15T08:00:00.000-07:00

I often see people asking for money to 'cure cancer'. Well meaning people, working hard to save lives. In many cases they have lost family members or friends to cancers that appear out of nowhere - 'she was perfectly healthy until last week she was diagnosed with cancer'. Sometimes, they are supported by people who have 'survived' cancer, sometimes more than once. I have lost friends and family members to cancer.

I don't believe in a cure for cancer. We all live with cancerous cells. There are many different types of cancerous cells, but most of them are not dangerous to a healthy person. Our bodies, our immune and healing systems normally encounter cancerous cells - and dispose of them, automatically healing our cancers. If your health level drops so low that we cannot heal our occasional cancer cells - they multiply slowly. It can take ten years or more for a cancer cell to develop into a tumor that can be detected.

By the time a tumor, or a cancerous mass is finally detected, and the medical system steps into action, the unhealthiness has continued for many years. It may be too late to cure the cancer with health. Serious medical actions are required, and often, time is of the essence. At this point the 'cure' is not healing, it is more likely 'cutting' important body organs, killing many healthy cells with chemicals and radiation, in an attempt to stop the cancer. Treatments for cancer typically halt the normal healing processes and lower the health of the patient.

But that's not all. Much of the medical system's cancer research is flawed, or bogus, or dependent on prior research that is also flawed or bogus as Dr. Mercola reports in a "New Discovery shakes the Foundation of Cancer Research". Mercola advises against giving to cancer research and has complained in the past that there is little or no reporting of where the funds go - other than to pay people like the executives of the America Cancer Society.

Mercola then offers 12 tips for cancer prevention. These tips are basically tips to improve your health. If you maintain your health - you are much less likely to develop cancer.

Why don't we know this? Because we don't know health. We live under the mistaken impression that we are healthy if we exercise, and eat a reasonably healthy diet - most of the time. We think that we are healthy if we are 'not sick'. We live in a society where 'healthy people' are suddenly diagnosed with cancers - but never diagnosed as unhealthy. We have no scientific measurements of the many dimensions of health - so we cannot accurately measure health, nor unhealthiness. The hierarchy of health is hardly known, much less understood.

Health is not measured. Health has many dimensions. It is possible, common, to be healthy in many dimensions - and unhealthy in a few. How can you tell?

I don't know how healthy I am. Do you?

Mercola's tips are useful - but they make no attempt to measure how healthy you are.

We need research into health and healthiness. People who have developed serious cancers need to be treated. But we will prevent more cancers, and save more lives when we can detect and prevent the unhealthiness that causes cancer. I believe we cannot 'prevent cancer' - but we can work to prevent unhealthiness, and most common cancers will not gain a foothold in a healthy body.

To prevent unhealthiness, we need to fight for our health freedoms. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of healthiness.

Yours in health,
tracy

Medical Freedom ? at Health Freedom sites

2011-10-13T07:15:00.000-07:00

If you do a google or a bing search for 'health freedom', you might notice that the top 50 hits or more are not about health freedom. They are about medical freedom.

What's the difference?

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org - is actually the Natural Solutions Foundation, mission: "to support advanced healthcare and health & food freedom" They use the word health, but almost every sentence really means 'medicine'.

http://www.charterofhealthfreedom.org/ - "the Charter of Health Freedom is proposed legislation that gives Natural Health Products and Traditional Medicines their own Act." It's about medicine, not about health.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_freedom_movement - "The term health freedom movement is used to describe a loose coalition of organizations, consumers, activists, alternative medicine practitioners and producers of products around the world who are campaigning for unhindered freedom of choice in healthcare. The movement is critical of the pharmaceutical industry and medical regulators, and uses the term "health freedom" as a catch phrase to convey its message." It's but medicine they are talking about, not health.

http://www.healthfreedom.ws/ - "Health Freedom Publisher's mission is to promote the availability of complementary and alternative health information resources". Of course they mean 'complementary and alternative medical information resources.

Why is this? Why don't 'health freedom' sites speak about health, as opposed to 'medicine'?

For hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, we have looked at health through a medical lens. When we see a health problem (a medical problem) we try to find a treatment cure. Then we try to find the cause, so we can prevent the problem in the future. Our medical systems have developed very sophisticated techniques to accomplish these goals.

But looking at 'health', through a 'medical lens', obscures information about health. It's as if we have a magnifying glass, or a microscope that is designed to finds illness. Health is always in the background - so far away that we need a telescope, or a different lens entirely to actually see health.

The Wind is my Drug - defining health factors

2011-10-11T07:11:00.000-07:00

The wind is my drug.
When it blows in the spring, I stand still, smell freshness and growth.
The wind is my drug.
In autumn, it brings colours and odors of harvest.
The wind is my drug.
Winter freshness bites my nostrils, invigorating me.
In summer it's cool relief.
The wind is my drug.

I checked the USFDA definition of a drug, and it's true - the wind qualifies. It says
"(g)(1) The term "drug" means ... and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in clause (A), (B), or (C). ..."

The full, tedious, 266 word official FDA definition of a drug can be found at USFDA Regulations SEC. 201. [21 U.S.C. 321] CHAPTER II—DEFINITIONS 1

Some might argue that the wind is not 'intended to affect...' - but when I climb up a hill to feel and smell the wind, my intentions are clear. I want my fix.

Maybe it's a good thing the wind keeps moving, so it can't be patented and bottled, or I am certain some large corporation would try to corner the market.

There are many different definitions for drugs, foods, supplements, herbs, etc. Each definition is created with an objective and intent. The USFDA definition of a drug is a definition designed for commerce and trade. It is specifically not designed for health - and makes no reference to health. Something that makes your legs fall off qualifies as a drug. By the FDA definition, all poisons are drugs. Maybe that's not so silly after all.

We need definitions designed for health. For Personal Health Freedom. With definitions designed for health, we can use the definitions to improve our health on a personal basis, and in our communities.

Maybe the World Health Organization (WHO) has a more healthful definition of 'drug'? They do not. Their web link for 'drug' simply says "see Essential medicines see Pharmaceutical products". Essential Medicines are defined as "... those that satisfy the priority health care needs of the population". eg. Not related to health improvement of 'non-priority health care needs'. And pharmaceutical products are defined as "... more commonly known as medicines or drugs – are a fundamental component of both modern and traditional medicine." Again, nothing about health. "WHO is not on first" when it comes to health - to misquote Abbott and Costello.

Webster's dictionary gives many definitions for 'drug', and we can choose one best suited Personal Health Freedom - and then enhance it to our objectives.

Drug: "a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body:.

Excellent. This definition clearly separates drugs from food. But we haven't defined 'food' yet - and once we do, we may need to define the 'wide gray area' between food and drugs. At first guess you might think this wide gray is called 'nutritional supplements'. It is much wider, and has many more shades of gray than that.

What is food? Webster's defines food. We can start there, by choosing one of the definitions.

Food: " material consisting essentially of protein, carbohydrate, and fat used in the body of an organism to sustain growth, repair, and vital processes and to furnish energy; also : such food together with supplementary substances (as minerals, vitamins, and condiments)"

It's a bit messy, but it's a start. We need simple, clear definitions that work for our health. The USFDA needs complex legal definitions for use in regulations.

But maybe we need to create a new word? We could define p-drugs (the p being silent of course) to distinguish pharmaceutical drugs from recreational drugs. But I'm not certain if my wind is an p-drug, or a recreational drug. It depends maybe, on my intent :-)

In simple terms, we can say that:

a) Foods are things we need to consume to maintain health and growth.
b) P-drugs are things we create or design to have a positive effect on health or illness. Drugs might be consumed (eaten), injected, applied as a topical, or inserted into an orifice of the body.
c) Drugs are not foods. Foods are not drugs.

With those simplified definitions, we can view the world of health and medicine with fresh eyes.

Is Vitamin C a drug or a food?
Did we create vitamin C? No.
Is Vitamin C required to maintain health and growth? Yes.
It's food. It's not a drug.

That was simple. How about something more complicated.

Is fruit salad a drug or a food?
Did we create fruit salad? Yes.
Is fruit salad required to maintain health and growth? Yes, the primary purpose of fruit salad is to provide nutrients to the body.
It's a food.

P-drugs are not just designed, they are patented. They are 'chemical creations'. In the past, a p-drug might be 'extract of this wonderful mushroom', or 'eye of newt'. But not today. Mushroom extracts and newt eyes are foods. Not p-drugs. How and why? Because you cannot patent 'eye of newt', nor 'extract of mushroom'. To create a pharmaceutical p-drug, and patent it - you need to find the 'essential chemicals of your 'mushroom extract' and then create a synthetic version that can be patented. Then, the synthetic version can be proven to be 'pure' and 'fundamentally different and unique' from 'mushroom extract', but having the same 'mystical powers'.

Mushroom extract is a food. Chemicals that are designed based on mushroom extract are drugs. Ocean water extract is a food (sea salt). But NACL (salt) created in a factory is a chemical that is not a food and cannot be patented, so it is not a drug either.

If it is not patented, and was never patented, or is not eligible for patent protection - it is not a drug.

So, we can refine our simple definitions:

a) Foods are natural things we need to consume to maintain health and growth.
b) P-drugs are things we create or design and patent, to have a specific effect on illness. P-drugs might be consumed (eaten), injected, applied as a topical, or inserted into an orifice of the body.
c) P-drugs are not foods. Foods are not p-drugs.
d) some of the things we eat are not p-drugs, and not foods.

So maybe the wind isn't a drug? But I don't care... I don't like to take drugs....
...the wind is my drug.

You don't know Health! Why we need Personal Health Freedom.

2011-10-06T19:00:00.000-07:00

I believe in Personal Health Freedom. Why do I believe we need Personal Health Freedom?

Because: You don't know health.

Our medical system is designed to treat disease. It works by diagnosis of disease, and treatment based on diagnosis. This is a very powerful technique that has developed a powerful suite of tools to treat disease.

However, we know almost nothing about health. Health is poorly defined, typically not defined without reference to illness. Health is not measured. We have no idea how to measure health - as opposed to illness. Most measurements of health consist of zero or 100 percent: unhealthy or healthy.

I have tried, and tried to find a useful definition of health, to guide my own personal actions.

If we surf over to the World Health Organization, for example, their homepage lists hundreds of links about illness and medicine. There are a few links labeled 'health...', but when you view those links you soon learn that the word health should be replaced with illness. Health Care Technology says "see Biomedical Technology". Health Services quickly reverts to 'medical services'. Health surveys 'measure many topics including mortality, disease occurrence, intervention coverage and risk behaviors'. Health surveys do not, it seems, actually measure health. This is understandable. Many of the people on our planet are ill. Maybe even 'most people', if you look closely enough. The World Health Organization focuses its attention on that majority.

You can search 'alternative health' sources with similar results. Alternative Health providers are not studying, nor providing 'health'. They are providing alternative medicines and alternative medical approaches. I applaud them for their efforts and their results. But they are not about health. They're about treating and avoiding illness.

There are literally thousands of unanswered, even 'unquestioned questions about health'. These are the subjects of my blog. Many of these questions might never be answered. I believe the only way we can answer these questions is by exercising our personal health freedoms.

What don't we know about health?

What is health? Is there a model of health that provides a complete picture of many aspects of health (nutrient health, cellular health, organ health, etc) in an appropriate hierarchical structure where we can see how each affects the other? (I have created one because I could not find one). And while were at it, what is illness? What are the primary causes of illness? I created this model as well, after searching in vain for a useful model of illness.

How do you measure health effectively? How do you measure the health of a person? Is your father 80 percent healthy? 50 percent? How do you measure the health of a diet on a scale of zero to 100 percent? With what level of accuracy? When is a non-diet (fasting) healthy? How healthy? How do you measure the health of your muscle cells? Your connective tissues? You heart, your liver? How do you measure your mind health (awareness, memory, calculation, etc). How do you measure your spiritual health? Your community health?

What nutrients are recommended to optimize health in humans? In what amounts?

The situation with Vitamin C is a perfect example of the incomplete results from the medical paradigm. We know that Vitamin C is 'vital'. It is required for a healthy life. But check the research into Vitamin C and you will find a minimum of facts and a maximum of BS. The only facts to be found are the disease (scurvy) caused by severe deficiency of Vitamin C , the treatment program for scurvy; the recommended minimum daily consumption amount of Vitamin C; and some discussion of the maximum amount of Vitamin C that can be tolerated without 'side effects'. Side Effects are a medical term that applies to the treatment of an illness. Side effects do not occur when taking Vitamin C for health - there are simply positive and negative health effects.

The BS about Vitamin C is huge. Does Vitamin C prevent the common cold? The Flu? Should you take mega-doses of Vitamin C, or not. Does Vitamin C prevent heart disease. The news media pays attention to the controversy, as if it was a political argument. But when you look closely, you will see that the BS is about Vitamin C and illness, not about Vitamin C and health.

The important question is ignored, not researched and not newsworthy. How much Vitamin C is healthy? How does Vitamin C improve your health? How does Vitamin C interact with other nutrients? How should Vitamin C be consumed to maximize the health benefits? Which of the 8 or more different types of Vitamin C available is the most healthy? Which is least healthy? Is a combination the most healthy? Does the healthiest consumption level of Vitamin C improve some health areas, while decreasing health in other areas?

These are some of the 'personal health' questions about Vitamin C. At present, there are no answers, and not even the slightest clue among scientists with regard to 'how to go about answering' these questions. The same issues exist with many health factors. There is no controversy because there is little awareness that questions exist.

Why don't we know the answers? Why is there no research into health, as opposed to illness? Because we don't measure health. We cannot measure health effects until we can measure health.

Are certain exercises likely to improve, or degrade health? Does competition in sports, at various levels, improve or degrade health status in the short term, medium term, long term?

How does a healthy diet relate to mind health? How do toxins, like caffeine, alcohol and lead consumption affect mind health?

Is health the same as 'well being'? What are the current theories, or philosophies of health? What is the matter with Mary Jane?

Is Thanksgiving good for your health?

So many questions, so few answers...

Every day, we each make our own, personal health decisions. Many of these decisions are restricted by corporations and governments, placing limits on our freedoms - without a clear understanding of health or health objectives.

You don't know health. But you do know yourself. You know more about your health than anyone else. You know much more about your individual, personal health and how it ebbs and flows than you could ever tell your doctor in a 15 minute visit about a specific problem. You know about your health - and you have the right to make decisions based on your objectives, and your knowledge. The right to information. The right to learn. And the right to make choices. And the right to change your mind.

We all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of healthiness. These rights are unconditional.
You have a right to Personal Health Freedom.

Yours in health,
tracy

What is the difference between health and illness?

2011-10-04T06:33:00.000-07:00

What is the difference between health and illness? First, we need to clarify what we mean by 'health'. In English we often use the word 'health' to refer to illness, or medical care. Health Care is actually care for those who are ill, and would more accurately be called 'Illness Care'. Health Insurance insures against high costs of medical illness. It pays for medical expenses in case of illness.

When we ask "What is the difference between health and illness?" we are actually asking the question:

What is the difference between healthiness and illness?

We can view healthiness as a hierarchy of health states.

Nutritional healthiness is the health of our diet, with regards to nutrients responsible for health.

Cellular healthiness is health of the cells, including good bacteria that comprise our bodies. Our bodies are made of hundreds of different types of cells.

Some of these cells group together into tissues - muscle tissue, connective tissues, etc. Tissues are the third layer in our health hierarchy.

Organs are the fourth layer of the health hierarchy. Your heart, your lungs, your pancreas. Healthy organs are essential to overall health.

Organs, tissues and cells sometimes function as systems. We have a circulatory system, a respiratory system, and a digestive system. Systems are the fifth layer in our health hierarchy.

Nutrients, cells, tissues, organs and systems comprise our bodies. The body is the sixth layer of the health hierarchy.

Your mind is, in many ways, like a very complex organ - but it creates consciousness and self awareness, rising above the status of a simple organ or system. Your mind is the seventh layer in your health hierarchy.

Above the mind is your spirit and spirituality. The healthiness of your spirit is the eight health hierarchy layer.

Community is the ninth and final layer of the health hierarchy. Humans live in and create communities for many purposes - the healthiness of these communities affects and is affected by all of the members.

You can see a chart of the primary and secondary disciplines of health here.

If we want to measure health, or healthiness, completely - we need to measure the health of each layer. Which brings us back to the question. What is the difference between healthiness and illness?

Illness is measured by diagnosis, and diagnosis is a very powerful, specific tool. Specific health problems must be present to diagnose an illness.

If your health, in any layer of the health hierarchy is deficient - it does not mean you have an illness. An illness requires specific health deficits, at specific thresholds of severity, to be diagnosed as an illness.

Simple, or primary illnesses have specific causes. Scurvy is caused by a deficiency of Vitamin C.

Secondary illnesses have sequential causes. A puncture wound allows an infection to enter and grow.

Compound or complex illnesses - like many cancers - are the result of may causes, often interacting over long periods of time.

Our medical (health care) systems focus time, energy and money on prevention of illness, treatment of illness and curing illness. There is little attention paid to healthiness. Health insurance will not pay for you to improve your healthiness - if you are not ill. If you are ill, you can go to a doctor or a hospital and expect treatment. In civilized countries, you can expect to be treated without the destruction of your financial health.

Improving your healthiness is personal, it's up to you.

This blog is about Personal Health Freedom. I see governments and corporations placing restrictions on healthy actions, often for unhealthy reasons. I believe we each have a right to health and a right to healthy actions - and that each of us has a right to decide what actions are healthy for us.

Mercola on Health Liberty

2011-10-01T08:43:00.000-07:00

Today, Mercola issued a blog about a new organization called Health Liberty. It appears to be a loose coalition of a number of organizations with specific health or illness objectives, with little overall focus on true health freedom. You can find them here. http://www.facebook.com/health.liberty

Although I believe this is a valuable coalition, it falls far short of an initiative that might reasonably be called 'health liberty'. There is little or no reference to health, or understanding health (as opposed to illness). And virtually no reference to liberty except in specific situations (vaccinations, dental mercury, organic foods). How can you recognize someone who is truly working for health freedom? Check these three simple objectives:

We need to support the Universal Declaration of Health Freedom at: http://personalhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2010/11/universal-declaration-of-health-freedom.html as a minimal starting point to health liberty.

We need to work to better understand health: nutritional health, cellular health, tissue health, organ health, system health, body health, mind health, spritual health and community health. An overall, structural understanding as opposed to trying to tackle specific health areas where there are controversies, see: http://personalhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2010/07/primary-and-secondary-disciplines-of_27.html for a starting point.

We need to focus on optimal health, instead of simply trying to avoid illness. We have a right to pursue optimal health in all aspects. How much Vitamin C should you consume for Optimal Health? How much coffee? How much exercise? We need to learn to measure health effectively to answer these questions. Measuring illness is insufficient and counter productive when pursuing health freedoms.

As for illness? Once we understand the primary causes of illness:deficiencies or excesses of genetics, nutrients, parasites, toxins, stress, and growth and healing. http://personalhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2010/08/primary-causes-of-illness.html

we can progress to cataloging, by cause, many of the primary illnesses that are ignored today because they are below the threshold of a diagnosis. Then we can move to catalog complex illnesses by cause.

When we work on these foundational initiatives, we will move in the true direction of health and health freedom.

What is a 'primary illness'?

2011-09-28T08:25:00.000-07:00

We have a definition of health, from a health perspective, as opposed to the more traditional 'medical perspective'. We have an understanding of the primary causes of illness, from a health perspective as opposed to a more traditional medical perspective.

We can define 'primary illness' as an illness that is the result of a single primary cause. Scurvy is a primary illness caused by a deficiency of Vitamin C. Dehydration is a primary illness caused by a deficiency of water. Water intoxication is caused by drinking too much water. Broken bones can be caused by too much physical stress.

We have identified 6 primary illness factors, 12 primary causes of illness - deficiency or excesses of genetics, nutrients, parasites, toxins, stress, growth and healing. Each of those may have hundreds of 'primary illnesses', many of which are not studied by our medical establishment.

The primary cause of illness, and the causes of all primary illnesses are simple imbalances. Once we realize this, we can see that many illnesses have no name and are not studied. In this article, I focus on primary nutritional illnesses:

a) we know of over 100 individual nutrients that are essential to health. We do not have scientific agreement on which nutrients are essential to health.

b) therefore, over 100 individual primary illnesses can be caused by deficiencies of individual nutrients

c) and, presumably, over 100 individual primary illnesses can be caused by excesses of individual nutrients

Some of these illnesses are clearly understood when the deficiency is severe, but not well studied when the deficiency is not severe. Severe deficiency of Vitamin A is known to cause blindness, poor immune system function, and poor bone growth. Mild Vitamin A deficiency? Not studied as far as I know. Is the name given to mild Vitamin A deficiency - 'Vitamin A deficiency' or is there no name? What is the test for Vitamin A deficiency? I believe is no well accepted, effective test for Vitamin A deficiency - I can only hope that someone proves me wrong someday.

Vitamin B1 deficiency causes beriberi - or is beriberi the name of severe Vitamin B1 deficiency? What is the name of, what are the symptoms of low level Vitamin B1 deficiency? What is a good test for minor Vitamin B1 deficiency?

Nutrition is the foundation of health. Nutritional deficiencies and excesses can, in many cases be prevented by simple positive or negative actions. Consume nutrients that are deficient, avoid or minimize nutrients that are in excess. Nutritional prevention is the most powerful tool of Personal Health Freedom, because it is most easily affected by personal choice. Personal choice is especially important in light of the poor quantity and quality of information about nutritional deficiencies and excesses.

Nutritional illnesses are also very easy to acquire. Simple in-attention to diet, dietary drift, or dietary simplicity (meat and potatoes diet, pizza diet) can easily result in minor nutritional deficiencies in a very short time period - and severe nutritional deficiencies over a long period.

But are they detected? Health deficits (illnesses) is typically ignored until they become severe illnesses.

We often think of ourselves as Perfectly Healthy, in truth we are probably all suffering from some health deficiencies that are not measured. Our bodies have amazing power to overcome the dis-advantages of minor health deficits and even severe health deficits. The medical paradigm does not recognize a health deficit until it becomes an illness to be treated. By this time, may primary illnesses or health deficits have combined to create a complex web of causes, symptoms and illnesses.

Illnesses are mysterious entities, identified by symptoms, not by causes. Thus, the natural reaction is to treat the symptoms rather than search for causes. If you go to a doctor because you have a bad cold - the cold may be treated. It is unlikely that your immune system will be tested, and less likely that you will be tested for any of the many primary causes of a weak immune system.

From one point, this is understandable - the medical establishment is, as they saying goes, 'up to their ass in alligators'. But it is time to think about draining the swamp.

We need a methodical, scientific study of illnesses and primary illness if we are to move our understanding of health beyond the current medical paradigm.

And until we have the results of these studies, and maybe long after - we need the freedom to choose our nutrients, our foods. Many of governments are actively working to limit the nutrients we can consume - and also to limit the foods that can be studied in scientific studies. These limits are put forth as 'consumer protection legislation' - they are often simply health freedom limitations and a recipe for a health deficient future.

Health be with you.

Health and Illness = Light and Darkness?

2011-09-20T10:25:00.000-07:00

I like to think in parallels. Can we draw a parallel between the concepts of light and darkness and our understanding of health and illness?

Illness is easily compared to darkness, or dark corners. It is often hidden away, difficult to discern or recognize. We can imagine a transition from light to darkness, corresponding to the similar transition from healthiness to illness. We often speak of the darkness of mental illness, the blackness of unhealthy tissue, and we know that black stools can indicate internal bleeding. Health is viewed as bright and alive with colours.

Like most parallels, this comparison provides some useful insights. It closely matches the 'medical paradigm' where illness is bad and health is good.

It is a useful metaphor - but its weakness is a focus on illness. We need a metaphor that has a focus on health. And as we develop a metaphor for health, as we view illness and health thru a different lens, we will see things that could not be seen thru the medical paradigm.

Healthiness is not measured by brightness, nor colour, it is measured by balance. The more our nutrition, cells, tissues, organs, etc are in living balance - the healthier we are. Health is the living balance between deficiency and excess. Our bodies are always working to maintain the balance - when we lose balance - we become ill and may die. When we view health as thousands of balances, and illness as being severely out of balance - it is easy to imagine that we have many small illnesses all of the time.

We cannot shine a light on illness to create or improve health. We cannot improve health by 'cutting out' the darkness (illness). We can only improve health by changing the balance. I often use Vitamin C as an example, but you can substitute many health factors and come to similar insights.

Viewed through the medical paradigm, scurvy is illness, or darkness. Scurvy can be prevented by consuming sufficient Vitamin C. If scurvy is present, it can be treated with Vitamin C. The effects of severe scurvy cannot be 'cured' - if you lose teeth because of scurvy, Vitamin C will not grow them back. This is a useful paradigm to prevent or treat illness, but a poor paradigm to optimize health.

Viewed through the healthy balance paradigm, scurvy is not simply an illness, it is an imbalance - a prolonged deficiency of Vitamin C. If you are suffering from a deficiency of Vitamin C - you can improve your health by adding Vitamin C to your diet. It is useless and trivial to say "Vitamin C prevents scurvy" because it is the same saying "Vitamin C prevents Vitamin C deficiency". Vitamin C does not 'cure' a Vitamin C deficiency. Vitamin C does not prevent, nor cure scurvy. A deficiency of Vitamin C is scurvy. The medical paradigm only recognizes this when the deficiency is severe and prolonged. It may well be that people who are exposed to prolonged minor deficiencies of Vitamin C, or severe short deficiencies of Vitamin C develop conditions exactly like scurvy - but on a much smaller scale, not recognized as 'illness'. When we can accurately measure 'healthiness', as opposed to only measuring 'illness', we will see the effects of Vitamin C deficiency earlier and understand much more about healthiness.

The challenge, even in the simplest situation, is to determine what is 'out of balance'. The symptoms of prolonged severe Vitamin C deficiency are well documented and easily recognized - and named scurvy. However, a minor Vitamin C deficiency has symptoms in common with many other problems. So, how can you know if you are suffering from a minor Vitamin C deficiency?

Medical researchers do not attempt to define the 'healthiest' intake of Vitamin C. Medical researchers cannot even agree on the recommended 'minimum intake' of Vitamin C. The United Kingdom Food Standards Agency recommends a minimum of 40 mg per day. The World Health (so called) Organization recommends a minimum of 45 mg per day (although they claim to be a 'health organization' they do not make a recommendation for optimal health). Health Canada (so called, they also do not make a recommendation for optimal health) recommends 75 to 90 mg per day as a minimum. The National Academy of Sciences in the USA recommends 60 to 95 mg per day as a minimum. Although each of these numbers may be presented as the 'recommended healthy intake', the numbers are very specifically designed to be used by prisons, armies, schools, etc to ensure that minimum nutritional needs are met. No official organization recommends a 'healthiest daily intake of Vitamin C', or of any nutrient.

How can you decide what is healthiest intake of Vitamin C for you? This is your personal health decision. You need the right to decide for yourself - your personal health freedom.

Vitamin C is a health factor that has a very wide 'healthy balance' area. Our bodies can compensate for low or high consumption of Vitamin C quite effectively. Vitamin C is very well tolerated in excess, or as deficiency for short periods of time. In contrast, a deficiency of oxygen can have rapid, severe consequences while selenium and iron can have toxic effects at very low levels. In each case, health exists at the balance between deficiency and toxicity. If we try to understand this using the light vs darkness paradigm, it is as if there is only light in the centre - and darkness at both ends of the balance.

A healthy body maintains thousands of health balances, as best it can. When one or more of the health components goes out of balance, your body does its best to compensate and to bring you back to balance. When you lose your ability to maintain the balance of life, you tip and die.

Can you be perfectly healthy? Can a light be perfectly bright? Maybe, just before it destroys you. I love photography, but I can't take a picture unless I can see both light and darkness.

Can your body be only 'healthy' with no 'unhealthy' components? No. Your body is composed of hundreds of different types of cells. Each cell type lives, divides and dies at a clearly understood rate. Some of your cells are young and vigorous. Some are dead or dying. This is a normal aspect of our healthy state. Our healthy balance does not just exist for a moment, it is a living balance always adjusting and moving forward.

Is health and illness like light and darkness? This useful metaphor is insufficient to a full understanding of health, and of health freedom. We need to move beyond it - to a new paradigm with a focus on health. A healthy balance.

Toothpaste Rant

2011-09-01T16:26:00.000-07:00

Today is senior's day at the local drug store - time to stock up on supplies. But not toothpaste evidently. I generally buy Sensodyne Original. I used to buy it there. Not that I'm partial to Sensodyne, just that it is one of, possibly the only toothpaste commonly available (outside of health food stores) toothpaste that does not contain fluoride. But, as the clerk said "If it's not on the shelf, we don't sell it."

My local drug store, like most big chains, has over 50 different flavours of toothpaste. I say 'flavours', because there is only one basic 'formula', and only four or five different brands - most of the 50 different entries made by Crest or Colgate, followed by Sensodyne. Every one of the 50 different toothpastes contain fluoride.

I have seen studies suggesting that fluoride reduces cavities. Ditto for triclosan. I'm not interested.

I would be interested in scientific studies if they were 'scientific' enough to take ALL of the known recipes for toothpaste and test them against each other, and publish all of the results. And if a new toothpaste recipe is proposed, let it go thru the same tests. Using scientific tests to find the BEST TOOTHPASTE would be a great idea, and a great ongoing project - where short term and long term results could be measured. That's how scientific studies of medicines should be designed. What are the short term results? What are the long term results? Most people use the same toothpaste recipe for decades.

But, scientific studies seldom, if every take the holistic approach to science - because they are designed to help market a specific drug or product. So called 'scientific studies' are generally battles between A (the proposed new product) and B - and are only published if A wins by a conclusive margin. If A loses, the study may need to be re-defined. That's one of the reasons scientific studies are generally 'short term'. The company wants to get the winner to market. Most company funded 'scientific studies' are about as useful as the 'scientific study' showing that n percent of people prefer pepsi over coke. You can make the test as 'scientific' as you like - the results are still garbage.

So much for Health Freedom in the toothpaste department. As near as I can tell, Crest does not produce a toothpaste without fluoride. Colgate produces many different toothpastes - only one that does not contain fluoride. Ditto for Sensodyne. My local drugstore does not sell a single toothpaste that does not contain fluoride.

Now maybe fluoride is good for your health. Maybe not. I do know that more than 10 countries have banned the addition of fluoride to water supplies - but still allow fluoride toothpaste. I know that fluoride toothpastes have warnings on the package that say 'do not swallow' - and frankly, I don't want to brush my teeth with something that is not safe to swallow.

I want the freedom to make my own decision. I’d rather choose between 2 real toothpastes instead of 50 flavours of a single toothpaste recipe.

So, I will not buy toothpaste at my local, big chain, grocery store, and I will not buy toothpaste at my local, big chain, drugstore - because they restrict my freedom to choose a toothpaste that does not contain fluoride. I find it a bit strange that our so called 'freedom based capitalist system' results in stores that limit my choices to flavours instead of substance.

I believe in Personal Health Freedom - if you want to purchase a toothpaste that contains fluoride, more power to you. If you want a toothpaste that does not contain fluoride - I hope you have a nearby health food store. I'll be driving a few extra miles to get mine, when my Sensodyne Original runs out.

Is Ramadan Good for Your Health?

2011-08-31T06:59:00.000-07:00

We've come to the end of Ramadan and I thought I'd do some checking to see if Ramadan is good for the health of participants. Turns out there is surprisingly little investigation of this question, and no definitive statements from medical researchers. We might expect that - medical researchers are not HEALTH researchers after all.

There is surprisingly little definitive research results of whether fasting is good for your health. Ramadan is a very special type of fasting - and perhaps more difficult to research. But why don't we know if fasting is healthy?

Studies of the effects of fasting on health fail due to the medical paradigm. A typical statement from the medical systems are like this WIKI quote " Benefits include reduced risks of cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, insulin resistance, immune disorders, and more generally, the slowing of the aging process, and the potential to increase maximum life span". Duh.. These are mostly medical benefits, not health benefits. And the next step taken by the 'medical paradigm' is to measure the 'side effects' of fasting, as if fasting was a 'medicine'. I think trying to study health using the medical paradigm is a bit like trying to study darkness by shining a light on it.

Why don't we know if fasting is good for your health? Because we don't measure health. We only measure illness. And we don't have a solid framework to define and study health. How can you measure health effects without a clear definition of health?

If you read my blog - you may know that I have developed a framework for understanding and studying health, as opposed to illness. The primary components of health are nutritional health, cellular health, tissue health, organ health, systems health, body health, mind health, spirit health and community health.

With this framework we have useful way to study the effects of fasting on health. One step at a time.

What are the effects of fasting on:

Nutritional Health: at first glance we might think that fasting could not possibly improve nutritional health, but looking closer we can see at least two nutritional advantages. First, if we eat the same, or similar foods repeatedly over a long time period our bodies are exposed to the toxins in those foods. Every food contains some toxins. By fasting, we stop our exposure to those toxins for the length of the fast, giving our bodies time to clear out and recover. Secondly, many people fast by avoiding on some foods. This may force consumption of more 'different foods'. If the standard diet is deficient - the fasting diet may provide missing nutrients. Both of these areas are potential rich areas of study - if we study health. The first major stumbling block is that we don't have any validated, commonly used techniques to measure nutritional health.

Cellular Health: does fasting make our cells healthier? I'm not sure we have any method of measuring overall cellular health. Can you imagine going to your doctor and she says "I'm sending you to the lab to test the health of your cells" - or even a subset "I'm sending you to the lab to test the health of your blood cells" or "your skin cells". When we can measure cellular health, we can take the next step - to measure whether or not fasting improves cellular health in the short, medium and long term. Of course we might learn that fasting improves the health of some types of cells and degrades the health of some other cells - there are hundreds of different types of cells in the body.

Tissue Health: does fasting improve tissue health? Health proponents claim that fasting helps the body to clear toxins and improve tissue health. Medical practitioners say... ? Well, medical practitioners do not measure tissue health on a regular basis, so what could they say? Suffice to say they don't have any meaningful agreement on any meaningful statements. When we can reliably measure tissue health - we can take the next step and measure the effects of various types of fasting on tissue health.

Organ health: do you see a pattern here? Medical practitioners research organ illness, but do not measure organ health in any useful fashion. It is not at all uncommon for someone to have a medical, be given a 'clean bill of health', and then rapidly succumb to organ failure that was not detected. Because we don't measure organ health. When we learn to measure organ health effectively, we can measure the effects of fasting on organ health.

System Health: does fasting improve or degrade your circulatory system? your lymphatic system? your digestive system? We don't measure system health, so how can we know?

Body Health: is the whole more that the sum of the parts? The body is more than the sum of the cells, tissues and organs. We need to learn to understand this more clearly. To define 'body health' clearly enough that we have useful measurements of body health - separate from measurements of illness, before we can measure the effects of fasting on the body. And when we speak of the effects of fasting on the body - our statement should be separate from statements about the effects of health on the liver, the respiratory system, etc.

Mind Health: is fasting good for your mind? Does it improve your memory? Your calculation abilities? Your planning abilities? In the short term? Medium term? Long Term? We have techniques to make these studies - but there are no 'standard lab tests'. When we can reliably, expertly measure mind health - we can study the effects of fasting on mind health. Mind Health studies may be the most difficult for our society to accept as a general practice, but it is an essential component of health measurement.

Community Health: does fasting improve community health? Studies have shown that there are fewer crimes committed during fasting periods, like Ramadan. That is one component of community health. What other components we should measure to understand community health?

Spiritual Health: does fasting promote spiritual health? It is an interesting question in light of the fact that most people fast based on spiritual beliefs. But how do we measure spiritual health? At present, we have no way to measure spiritual health - although we might have two fleeting impressions. One - spiritual health exists and can be strong or weak in different individuals and in the same individual at different times in their life. Two - measuring spiritual health might be dangerous from a religious or political perspective.

So.... Does fasting improve health? We don't know. Frankly, we don't reliably know if anything improves health (as opposed to avoiding or curing disease) - because we don't measure health.

I believe in Personal Health Freedom. I believe we need to study health, separately from our studies of medicine, if we are to truly understand health. This is one necessary first step to true Health Freedom.

A Health Paradigm

2011-01-24T18:34:00.000-08:00

In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn defines a scientific paradigm as:

what is to be observed and scrutinized
the kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject
how these questions are to be structured
how the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted

Many people believe our current 'health systems' use an illness paradigm. That we

observe and scrutinize illness and progression of illness.
that we ask questions about the causes of illness and their prevention and cures.
that these questions are structured around the science of clinical studies
and that these scientific investigations give us the 'gold standard' of treatments.

This may be true in the doctor's office, but it is not true on the frontiers of medicine. The frontiers of medicine operate on a patented product paradigm, where most of the products are patent medicines.

chemicals and techniques are scrutinized with an aim to create patent medicines and patented technologies.
questions are asked about the sales potential of the proposed patented product.
questions are structured around products and sales. Effects on illness are measured. Effects on healthiness are not measured. Negative effects on health are reported as side effects. Positive effects on health are ignored, except where specifically targeted by the medicine.
new products are tested against placebos. They are never tested against the 'best treatment currently available' - in fact no-one tracks the 'best treatment currently available'.

Our medical system produces 'new treatments and medicines' based on their sales potential, not their health potential This is not a useful way to examine or improve health and healthiness. It is not even be the best way to look at illness. However, the patent medicine model is so pervasive that it totally infiltrates modern medical practice.

The patent medicine paradigm has goals so strongly linked to sales and profit - that clinical studies do not dare measure health and healthiness. It is completely acceptable, with the current paradigm, to sell products that decrease the overall health of patients - while improving specific conditions or symptoms. Not just acceptable - it can be very profitable, and no risk. No one measures the health results of a patent medicine. No one will know unless the effects are so serious that they cause significant illness.

Our current medical systems have recently - in the past ten years - developed a tendency towards banning products. Products may be banned for a variety or reasons, or for no apparent reason at all. In a previous blog we saw that a teddy bear was banned in Canada, even if it makes people feel better - because it contained white rice, so that it could be warmed in a microwave. Clearly a case of the medical system running amuk. Not only was the teddy bear banned, all of them were confiscated by 'Health Canada' and the manufacturer was put out of business.

If we had a system based on health, we would understand that products should not be banned if they improve health. And that when a product ban is considered, both sides - the potential for good as well as the potential for bad need to be considered.

Our medical systems are currently on a 'banning blitz', removing potential health products by the thousands in Canada, the USA and Europe. How can we expect to learn about health if our medical system creates banned products everywhere?

To quote from the Canadian Health Products regulations, for example: "All natural health products must have a product licence before they can be sold in Canada ...Once Health Canada has assessed a product and decided it is safe, effective and of high quality, it issues a product licence".

Stated most simply: All health products are banned unless they are deemed safe, effective and high quality by Health Canada. Health Canada does not need to justify their decisions, they can simply not issue a licence. Note, this regulation places a blanket ban on all natural health products. However, patented products normally have a very large, well established company working towards acquisition of a product license. There is generally no problem getting a licence for a patent medicine - it's simply part of the normal process.

Our freedom to buy and to sell, but also to propose, design, and evaluate all health products is drastically limited by this current paradigm.

No-one measures health. So how can a 'health product' be determined to be effective? How can we know it should be banned? Or licensed?

How might our health systems look if we shift our paradigms from illness and patent medicines to health and healthiness?

What if our goals were to observe and measure health and healthiness?
What if our questions asked were how to improve health and healthiness at all levels (nutritional, cellular, etc. as defined).
What if these questions were structured around the measurement of health and healthiness, not around the measurement of sales and profit?
What might we learn if we make rigorous studies of health and healthiness separated from illness, prevention and cures?

Our current medical systems can be very effective. Sometimes, however, they get 'stuck' because of an isolated point of view or medical paradigm. And sometimes our medical systems get things very, very wrong due to the narrowness of our medical paradigm. And our medical systems are ignorant of health.

When we start to use a health paradigm - we will be able to see things that were not visible from inside our current medical paradigm.

We need a health paradigm, not an illness paradigm.

We need a health paradigm, not a product paradigm.

We need a health paradigm and a health system for a more effective medical system.

Until we have a health paradigm - we will continue to lose more and more of our health freedoms.

Health Protection vs Health Freedom

2010-12-08T14:05:00.000-08:00

Last night I attended the FREEDOM IN CRISIS LECTURE TOUR lecture by Shawn Buckley. It was a very interesting, enlightening presentation. Shawn is a tireless (and as far as I can determine, mostly 'paidless') worker for health freedom, with great knowledge, insight and initiatives. There were many threads, and perhaps because I have researched health freedom - only one shocked me with it's intelligence.

In Canada, as you may know, our governments are pressing for strong 'consumer protection' legislation. Our government wants, not only the arbitrary restriction of your rights to purchase foods, medicines and even teddy bears - they also want very strong rights to order product recalls, to trespass and seize products deemed to be 'offending the regulations'.

Shawn gave many examples of government's attempts and ability to protect us from healthy living. The True Hope story, where our government acknowledges that suicide deaths resulted from product restrictions. The heart disease cure that brought hundreds of people back to health - how Shawn protected the seller in a legal challenge from the BC Medical Association. And finally, how our government shut down production and sales of a Teddy Bear - because it has a heat pouch containing white rice, a dangerous health risk.

Then Shawn reminded us about peanut butter. Of course we all know about peanut butter. Every year, people die from peanut butter. But anyone can go to the supermarket and buy a big jar of peanut butter. We need to ask, how can our government justify protecting us from white rice teddy bears, while allowing purchase and consumption of peanut butter.

But then he took the leap that surprised me. Shawn has issued 'access of information' requests when he wanted information about government reasoning and activities. Shawn is a lawyer - and legal processes are his forte.

He has issued an 'access for information request' about risk. But not what you might expect. You might expect Shawn to ask for the governments 'risk analysis' on several restricted products. But no, that would be to simple. Although it is clear the government has not done any risk analysis - it might be possible for them to create a risk analysis to justify the restrictions.

Shawn Buckley has asked the government if they have assessed the risk created by restrictions!

Brilliant! If the government is going to restrict our freedom because of a potential risk, they need to assess both sides of the risk.

If our government is sincere about protecting our health, they need to demonstrate that sincerity with analysis and processes that protect us from regulatory errors.

We know that, in the case of the True Hope product, EmPowerplus, our government actions to 'protect the public' resulted in suicide deaths of several bipolar patients. Government actions were taken against EmPowerplus without an assessment of the 'risk to the public'. And they were also taken without an assessment of the 'risk to the public' presented by the government regulations. In the end, the courts decided in favour of TrueHope, and issued a ruling:
====================================================================
court ruling

‘The Defendants [Truehope] are not guilty’

Necessity. ‘The Defendants were overwhelmingly compelled to disobey the D.I.N. regulation in order to protect the health, safety and well-being of the users of the micronutrient treatment [EMPowerplus] and the support program.’

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

Truehope was compelled by the courts to disobey the government regulations. Our government did not appeal.

If governments are to create regulations that restriction health freedoms, it is important that they:
- weigh the risks associated with the regulation
- weigh the risks associated without the regulation (eg. health freedom)
- make a decision based on a comparison of relative risks
and be prepared and have a process to re-evaluate all restrictions when new information comes to light.

Or our courts will continue to tell our citizens to ignore the regulations to keep our health freedom.

Star Trek Medicine vs measuring health

2010-11-24T07:33:00.000-08:00

The main medical item seen on various Star Trek shows (and various incarnations) is the medical tricorder. Star Trek uses many types of tricorders, or scanners used for various purposes. The medical tricorder is used to scan humans, animals and occasionally aliens for signs of illness.

Even in the Star Trek future, there seems to be no tool to measure 'health', only a tool to measure illness. This is demonstrated fully in Star Trek Minutiae episode 131 (not Star Trek)\ where the doctor says:

"I’m not picking up anything on my tricorder scan. He seems perfectly healthy."

Apparently, if you are healthy, the tricorder does not give a reading. The quote from Beverly in STTNG First Contact: "It's a... new medical scanner. It's a little more precise than an X-ray machine." The medical tricorder is a diagnostic device - not a health measurement device, nor a treatment device.

The most talked about medical scanner in today's technology is the MRI scan. Does the MRI scan reveal anything about your health? No. The MRI scan searches for 'abnormalities' - on the assumption that if there are no significant abnormalities detected - you are healthy. Health is not measured.

I wish for a future where we can measure health, instead of waiting for illness to 'strike' and then attempting to diagnose the illness.

What would our medical systems be like, if we could measure health?

How would 'clinical trials' be conducted if we could measure health effectively?

We should measure the health of all subjects before the clinical trial. Then apply the treatment. And after the trial - or even during the progress of the trial, measure the subjects' health again. 'Side effects' are a measure of illnesses caused by the treatment. We should also measure the 'health effects' -positive, or negative.

What would our 'health systems' be like if we could measure health? I think it will take a very long time to answer that question. When we can measure health effectively, we will learn many new facts, come to many new understandings. We will learn that specific actions that improve health in the short term - might be detrimental to health in the long term. Or that some actions that improve long term health actually harm short term health. This does not surprise us - but it would be very useful to have a measuring tool.

A specific exercise, running five miles, for example, might be shown to harm immediate health status, to improve medium term health status and slightly effect long term health status. We don't know.

Of course it's not that simple. Even with a toolbox that effectively measures health - it still takes 10 years to measure the effects of a ten year change in health activities. And a lifetime to measure the lifetime effect of lifestyle changes. This is the major reason these changes are personal - each person has a right to make their own decisions about health actions because the truth will not be known until they are dead and gone.

I firmly believe that measuring health is a serious deficiency in our current health systems and practices.

What might we learn about cancer patients, for example, if we try to measure health? I often hear or read quotes like 'a cure for cancer', 'he beat cancer, but it struck again', and 'she was in perfect health, but suddenly struck by cancer'. Does cancer strike suddenly? We know it does not. It takes years for cancer to grow to a dangerous level. Many, if not most people over a certain age, have some cancerous cells - and their healthy body is dealing with them effectively. But some people have either a more serious 'cancer', or a body in 'poor health', that creates a medical emergency. If we could measure the 'health' of all cancer patients - we might learn more than any 'cancer treatment clinical trials'.

We might also learn that cancer is not just a 'cellular' disease. Cancer cells exist, but the critical issue in a specific cancer might be nutrient health, tissue health, or system health or a combination of health factors.

We will be better equipped to find the 'cause' of many illnesses, if we can measure health effectively. There are many illnesses, like cancer, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, etc where the cause is not clearly known. Our current medical system searches for 'a cure', perhaps because once an illness is detected - finding a cure is more important than finding the cause. What if we could find the cause? In some illnesses, like arthritis, we know there are many potential causes - and each individual suffering from arthritis may be suffering from several causes. But current treatments for arthritis, generally, - ignore the cause.

We will be closer to finding and understanding causes when we start to measure health on all seven dimensions: nutritional health, cellular health, tissue health, organ health, system health, body health, mind health, spiritual health and community health.

When a doctor says 'he has the heart of a 20 year old', what does it mean? Does it mean anything useful, anything accurate? When we start to measure organ health and organize and analyze these measurements by demographics, we will be able to see that he really has the heart of a 24 year old, or not. We will also be able to tell if specific groups of people have better nutrient health, cellular health, etc - not just 'they live longer, but we don't understand why' or 'they are less likely to get heart attacks, but more likely to get cancer'.

Our medical system often speaks of the 'gold standard' treatment for an illness. What is the 'gold standard' for measuring nutrient health? What is the 'gold standard' for measuring cellular health? What are the gold standards for measuring tissue health, organ health, mind health, spiritual and community health?

The sad truth is that we do not have any standards for measuring health. And few tools. We have many tools that measure illness - few, if any, that measure health.

I believe in personal health freedom. An important step to achieving personal health freedom is the development of a suite of tools to measure health. If you know of tools that 'measure health', as opposed to measuring illness - please leave a comment, or drop me a note.

Universal Declaration of Health Freedom

2010-11-15T09:25:00.000-08:00

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of healthiness.

Full Version:
=========

Whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and...";
and
Whereas the United States Declaration of Independence says "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that amount these are life, liberty and...";
and
Whereas the Canadian Bill of Rights says "the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely, (a) the right of the individual to life, liberty...";
and
whereas life does not exist without health, and quality of life is first measured by quality of health, and life ends when health ends;
and
whereas liberty is fundamentally constrained by health, and poor health creates a deficit in the liberty;

therefore
a fundamental right of all people is "the right to pursue healthiness".

Thus, the Universal Declaration of Health Freedom states thus:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of healthiness.

------- discussion -----------

These three rights are fundamental rights of individuals and do not depend upon, nor infringe upon the rights of other individuals. As fundamental rights, these rights are not dependent on any 'responsibilities', that might encumber non-fundamental rights, for example the right to property.

"The right to pursue healthiness" includes the right to seek the highest qualities of personal and community health and to take actions that improve health.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Any action that threatens the health of an individual is a threat against the "security of the person". Therefore it can be seen that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is perfectly aligned with the Health Freedom Declaration.

The United States Declaration of Independence states that " that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". "Pursuit of happiness" a valuable right, and it can be seen that it includes the pursuit of healthiness. What could be more happy than a healthy person? Happiness might first be measured by healthiness, which includes physical, mental, spiritual and community health. Therefore, it can be seen that the United States Declaration of Human Rights is also aligned with the Health Freedom Declaration.

The Canadian Bill of Rights states that "the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property". Like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Canadian Bill of rights recognizes right to 'security of the person' and thus the right to the 'pursuit of healthiness'.

The Canadian Bill of Rights muddies the water with the right to the 'enjoyment of property'. Enjoyment of property is an important right in our society - and an important right to health freedom. However, it is not a 'fundamental right'. By its very definition, the right to the enjoyment of property, most especially when the property in question is a limited resource like real estate, infringes on other people's rights to enjoy the same property. Thus, property is a 'secondary right', not a fundamental right.

===========================================================
You can find other declarations of health freedom:

International Declaration of Health Freedom from World Health Freedom Assembly 2006. A more in depth declaration of health freedom, although the text is a bit sloppy and could use a good editor. Contains information that is useful for contacting other Health Freedom organizations around the world.

2004 - NHFC Declaration of Health Freedom "National", eg. United States view. Blah, blah, blah. Poorly written, unnecessary emphasis on privacy and law. Some useful links and info.

Charter of Health Freedom Canadian. Unfortunately reads as if it was written by a lawyer who was paid by the word.

Measuring Health - how healthy are you?

2010-10-25T20:48:00.000-07:00

If you can't measure it. you can't manage it", said management guru Peter F. Drucker.

How do you measure your personal health? Can we measure health? Is 'health' the opposite of 'illness'. Do we measure illness? These simple questions force us to think seriously about the definitions of health, and illness.

Warning. If you try GOOGLE, your public library, your doctor to find a 'health measurement' - you will be seriously challenged. The word 'health' is generally used to mean 'illness'. Health Care is not about health - it is about illness. "Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires", by Ian McDowell is not, as the title suggest - about measuring health. It is about measuring illness and deficiencies.
For example it discusses the Health Utilities Index which measures the health of our sensory systems as:
"SENSATION:
1. Able to see, hear, and speak normally for age.
2. Requires equipment to see or hear or speak.
3. Sees, hears, or speaks with limitations even with equipment.
4. Blind, deaf, or mute."
eg. If you can 'see, hear and speak normally for your age' - you are healthy. There is no measurement of how healthy you are. Measurements of 'health' only arise when you are clearly 'deficient'. Health is not measured. Either you have it, or not.

Illness is defined by 'diagnosis'. The result is binary. Either you have disease x, or you do not. Doctors diagnose 'illness' and prescribe a treatment. Some illnesses have progressions, from pre-diabetic, to type 2 diabetes is one example. Pre-diabetes is also measured as a 'yes/no' answer.

Yes/no responses are not adequate measures of health. We need a more sophisticated technique - or perhaps many sophisticated techniques to create an accurate measure of health. We can start with the basic disciplines of health: nutrients, cells, organs, systems, physical health, mental health, social health and spiritual health. If we can measure health on each of these areas - the sum will provide an overall health measurement.

But search you may - you will not find a tool to measure your health status in any one of these areas - much less all 8 of them.

How can you accurately measure your nutrient health? Nutrient health is made up of hundreds of components - the essential nutrients. Our medical establishment does not agree on the two key factors required to measure nutrient health:

1. What nutrients are essential to health? eg. What nutrients do we need to measure to determine nutrient health.
2. What level of nutrient is 'optimal' for optimal health? Our medical systems generally define how much of each nutrient is 'essential to avoid illness in most people', and how much is 'so much it may result in risk of illness'. But between those two numbers - often very far apart - there is no scientific information that recommends 'optimal' levels of nutrients.

If we try to measure cellular health... hmm. Do we need surgery? What tools does our medical system have to measure cellular health - of a relatively healthy subject? Are the blood cells healthy? The skin cells? The bone cells? etc. How do we know how healthy they are - on a scale of 0 to 100 percent, for example.

When we can measure health, some serious questions might be easily answered. Do mercury fillings improve or degrade your health? Your cellular health? Your organ health? Does removing mercury fillings improve your health in the short term? The long term?

Can we measure individual (or personal) health to any useful level of accuracy?

How can we manage our own personal health if we cannot measure health?

If we are to strive for Personal Health Freedom - we need to explore the measurement of health.

Driving with a Healthy Attitude

2010-10-05T07:31:00.000-07:00

Last year I attended a concert by a visiting musician. I do that a lot....

Before the performance, she told us about her drive across the city, and how she was 'cut off' three or four times.

My brain went fuzzy. I thought,"When was the last time I was cut off?" I couldn't remember. I drive a lot. More than most people. But I hardly ever get 'cut off'. So what's up with that? It took some thinking, and I started to pay attention to how I drive. Over time, the answer came to me.

There are several reasons why I never get 'cut off' when I'm driving.

First, if someone is ahead of me - even in a different lane, I pay attention. If they want to move in front of me, even if they don't signal, I generally detect it in advance - and give them room. It is almost impossible for someone to 'cut me off' because of my driving attitude. And afterwards, I usually find they don't even want to be in front of me - they want to change lanes so they can make a turn, disappearing from my path.

I remember driving in Toronto, with an older passenger who said "I never signal lane changes. Why should I signal my lane changes." I pointed to the car in front of me, clearly (to me) planning a lane change. I backed off - and the driver zipped in front. "There," I replied "he didn't signal - so I'm driving for him as well".

Another reason I don't get cut off has to do with my high tolerance for mistakes by other drivers. To be honest, sometimes I get frustrated, but generally, if a driver is lost, in a hurry, not paying attention, a new driver, an elderly person who maybe doesn't see very well, a visitor from out of province, or just plain idiotic and they do manage to 'surprise' me by pulling in front - I don't hold a grudge. I might honk my horn, but generally not. And in a few minutes - I forget about it.

So, if you cut me off today, I won't remember, or care, five minutes later. I certainly don't keep a list of people who cut me off, nor a count.

Next time you are cut off (or in a car where the driver was cut off) ask these simple questions:

1. Were you caught by surprise? If you were caught by surprise, maybe you were not "cut off", maybe you were just not paying attention? Honk your horn at yourself. (sometimes I wish we had different horn sounds - so I could have one honk for DANGER, another for 'sorry....').

2. Did you see it coming, and speed up "try to not let the other driver in"? You were not "cut off", you were driving like an idiot. Shame on you. Honk your sorry... horn.

3. Were you speeding? If you were speeding, are you saying: "I'm a better driver than most, so I can choose to drive faster and still be safe" - so, if you can drive faster and be safe, then no one can cut you off - because you anticipate and share the road better than the other drivers.

I believe it is not possible to be cut off if you are speeding. Once you pass the speed limit, you accept responsibility for what happens in front of you.

so... ask yourself, is it possible to be 'cut off' if you are driving alert, safely and sharing the road? Maybe, but unlikely.

The secret to ensure we are never "cut off" when driving, is simple: change our attitude. Share the road.

Make this a personal health choice. Choose to be a healthy driver.

I get knocked down, but I get up again

2010-09-05T10:08:00.000-07:00

I get knocked down, but I get up again.

(song: Tubthumpinb by CHUMBAWAMBA)

Is this how health works? We are up. Then we get knocked down. Then we get up again. This happens over and over and over. At some point, we get knocked down so hard that we cannot get up again - or we realize we need help. So we visit a doctor. The doctor prescribes some medicines, or surgery, or other intervention - and we get up again, but maybe not so tall. Until we get knocked down and we can't get up again. And we die.

Sometimes we view our health status as 'ok', or 'sick'. eg. as 'Knocked down' or 'up again'. This is a very simplistic and weak paradigm.

How should we view health?

Our health is a status measurement - a summary of many status measurements. How healthy are we on a scale of 0 to 10. Dead, to perfectly healthy. How healthy are our cells? How healthy are our tissues, our organs, our bodily systems, our body, our mind, our communities and our spirit? The sum, or summary, of these health status measurements is a powerful measure of our health. We are not 'knocked down or up again'. We are lying down, or kneeling, or crawling, or standing up, or walking or running. Or we can walk, but not run. Or we can run, but not very fast... A continuum of measurements provides a more useful health status.

Health is also a balance measurement - the sum or summary of many balance measurements. Are our nutrients in balance - not to little, not too much. Are our stresses in balance - not too little, not too much. Our parasites are in balance, not to little, not too much. And so on.

If a 60 year old goes to the doctor for his annual physical, and the doctor says "You're as healthy as a 50 year old person". What does it mean? Does it mean anything? And next month, if the 60 year old is diagnosed with terminal cancer - does it mean he's as healthy as a 50 year old with terminal cancer?

How does this happen? It does happen. Why is our current health system not able to measure health status, complete health status - and give a useful answer?

The answer is very complex and very simple.

There are 9 dimensions of health. Nutrients, cells, tissues, organs, systems, body, mind, community and spirit. How do we measure your nutrient health? We don't, unless you are ill. Do we have an established method for measuring nutrient health of people. No. How do we measure the health of your cells? We don't, unless you are ill. Do we have an established method for measuring the health of your tissues? No. And so on.

Each of these 9 dimensions contains a list of components. There are over 100 different nutrients essential to the maintenance of our health. Our medical system does not provide a definitive list, much less a definitive guideline for health. Our body consists of over one hundred different types of cells. Is it possible to measure the health status of each of them? Is it necessary to determine health status completely? Our bodies are comprised of many organs, systems and tissues. How do we effectively measure the health status of each and all of them?

There are 6 factors that can lead to illness, by deficiency or excess. They are genetics, nutrients, parasites, toxins, stress and growth. How do we measure the status of these health factors? We don't bother, unless you are ill. Do we have an established method for measuring deficiencies or excesses of nutrients? Of stress? Of growth? No. Not unless you are sick to the point of a diagnosis.

Of the over 100 essential nutrients, are you suffering from a deficiency or an excess of 1, or 10, of 30? Do you have sufficient healthy bacteria to maintain your health? But not an excess, and not an excess of unhealthy bacteria? Are you under-stressed? Or overstressed? How can we tell the difference? Are the symptoms similar? Are you lacking stress in one area, but suffering from too much stress in another?

I believe that, if we shift our paradigm from 'I get knocked down, but I get up again', to 'In some ways I am very healthy and in others, not so healthy - I'm working to learn about and improve in those areas', we will be closer to understanding and improving our health - and our health systems.

What do we need to accomplish this? We need to develop effective paradigms and tools to measure health status and illness status - far below the threshold of 'sickness' (I get knocked down). We need more powerful tools than simple diagnostics that produce a 'yes/no' answer.

We need to provide individuals with information about their health status, based on the measurements from these tools and technologies.

We need to give individuals the responsibility and the power to take health actions on their own behalf. To give them personal health information - and Personal Health Freedom.