Why all Drugs have Side Effects.

When some people develop a serious illnesses, they try dietary changes - organic, non-processed foods, herbs and possibly supplements.  These attempts are generally random, not directed to specific nutrient or dietary needs.  Our dietary needs for optimal healthiness are poorly studied and poorly understood. Guesswork is often the best an individual can do to avoid the drug paradigm and side effects. If there is no solid diagnosis, or no clearly successful treatment, a doctor might say 'try this prescription, and see if it helps'.

Don't get me wrong.  If you have an illness that is best treated by drugs - I'm all for them.  But if you have an illness that is best treated by healthicines - a drug can only make it worse.

What are medicines? Medicines are used to treat illness. Medicines are defined as drugs.

Medicines generally work against the illness.  If you have an infection (an excessive growth of bacteria) - an antibiotic works to kill the bacteria. If you have a fracture, medicine works to reduce the excess pain and possibly inflammation until it heals.  If you have a cold, medicines work to reduce the symptoms of the cold, your body does the rest.

Medicines help us to live with the illness (reducing symptoms), or by countering imbalances that are excessive: bacteria, viruses, toxins, etc.

Healthicines are used to treat unhealthiness. Medicines do not work against nutritional deficiencies, for example.  If they do reduce symptoms of a deficiency - drugs can make it worse by making it tolerable.

As we saw in the blog: The truth about milk: raw? or pasteurized? we can take a healthiness view of illness, or a medical view.  The medical view is a very sharp tool, designed to diagnose and treat illness.  The healthiness view is a different view, appropriate to improve health balances.

Drugs do not directly counter unhealthiness - they work by changing the illness, often in an effort to facilitate healing.  If you are suffering from an infection, an anti-biotic attempts to kill the dangerous bacteria, leaving your body to heal. Of course antibiotics also kill helpful body cells, resulting in a shifted, or new illness that requires healing.

As a result, all drugs have side effects.  They move your illness, or your healthiness sideways, sometimes even backwards - not towards healthiness.  This is done in the hope that the 'new state of illness' is less severe, or sufficiently different, or perhaps more diffused, that your body can recover and heal more easily.  Antibiotics kill many non-human cells, both beneficial and harmful. Your healthiness is damaged as the illness is attacked.


What are healthicines? Healthicine is the art and science of creating and improving healthiness.



Healthicines are used to improve healthiness. Healthicines are used to treat unhealthiness.


As shown in the diagram, healthicines move directly towards health.  If you are suffering from scurvy, consuming Vitamin C will re-balance your health.  You need to consume Vitamin C to rebalance. If an illness is caused by a nutrient imbalance, a drug might treat the 'symptoms', but it does not treat the cause. This may result in a more serious illness because the cause continues to cause illness.

If you are suffering from arthritis - exercise might be the most appropriate healthicine. Drugs that make the arthritis pain bearable can only be beneficial if combined with exercise to lubricate the joint and promote healing.  Otherwise, drugs will simply lead to a more severe illness - although with less pain.

Some illnesses are well treated by drugs.  Some illnesses are best treated by healthicines. Some are best treated by a combination of healthicines and drugs. What is the true percentage? We don't know.

How many illnesses are caused by nutritional deficiencies or imbalances?  We don't know.

Illness is caused by an imbalance, a deficiency or an excess so severe that it results in a medical condition. An unhealthiness can be a minor health imbalance, or severe enough to be diagnosed as an illness. There are many different deficiencies or excesses that can cause illness. Deficiencies and excesses in nutrients can result in illnesses from scurvy (Vitamin C) to obesity (sugar).  Deficiencies and excesses of exercise can result in flaccid muscles or torn ligaments. Deficiencies or excesses in your immune system can result in more serious colds and flu to autoimmune diseases.

We know that many illnesses are caused by severe single nutrient deficiencies.  We know, for example that scurvy is caused by a severe deficiency of Vitamin C. But we have very little understanding of what illnesses might be caused by a long term, minor deficiency of Vitamin C.  I suspect your doctor will diagnose them as 'old age'.

What illnesses might be caused by combinations of nutritional deficiencies.  Can we name one?  I can't think of one. And I find that very, very strange.  There are over 100 known 'essential nutrients' for the human body.  Given huge variations in diet over the planet, through different cultural groups and over time with individuals - there is huge potential for many combinations of nutrient deficiency. Can we name a single illness that is caused by a minor long term deficiency of TWO essential nutrients?

What might be the result of a prolonged deficiency of Vitamin A, a prolonged minor deficiency of omega 3, and a long term minor deficiency of Vitamin C?

What is the cause of age related macular degeneration? It is almost certainly the result of long term nutritional deficiencies or excesses.  What about other degenerative diseases?  Drug companies are busy searching for medicines, but few are studying or searching for healthicines.

Given the number of essential nutrients - over 100, the number of combinations of two nutrient deficiencies that might occur together is over 10,000.  Many nutritional deficiencies are uncommon in Western societies.  But many are common. According to the USDA's Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals - 60 percent of males do not meet the RDA minimum for Vitamin A; 64 percent do not meet the RDA minimum for Vitamin E; over 50 percent do not meet the RDA minimum for Vitamin B6, and so on....

We don't know what illnesses, or what symptoms might be caused by these, and other deficiencies.  But they should not be treated by medicines.  They can only be treated by healthicines.  By ensuring that people meet their nutritional needs.

You may have noticed the recent flurries of press regarding Vitamin D.  It seems Vitamin D prevents many illnesses - and most of us are not consuming enough Vitamin D.  But the press treats Vitamin D as if it was a medicine.  It is not - it is an essential nutrient, Vitamin D is a healthicine.

If you consume a medicine to solve a healthicine problem - the problem can only get worse. You cannot treat a Vitamin D deficiency by taking a different drug. You can only cure it by getting enough sunshine, or enough Vitamin D in your diet. Healthicine.

Today, 'healthicine' is not a word. Medicine is the science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease.  Medicines are drugs that you take to treat or cure illness.

The entire focus of our so called 'health systems' is on medicines.  We need to study healthicines more thoroughly if we are to attain optimal health.

Why don't we know what unhealthinesses are best treated by healthicines?  Healthicines do not have side effects. Because they treat the unhealthiness directly - they simply have health effects. 

You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of healthiness. You have a right to information about healthicines and medicines. You have a right to choose, but choice is best assisted by information.

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

ps. If you enjoy my posts, please share - and you might LIKE my facebook page. 

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

A Picture of Health

Medicine is defined, by Wikipedia, as 'the science and art of healing'.  Wrong as usual.  The body heals.  Medicine is the science and art of preventing, diagnosing and treating illness.  If the illness is treated properly - the body heals.  Medicine turns to the next problem.

In many cases, when you visit a doctor, you are given a prescription and told "try this, and let me know how it works".  There is little art, no science with regards to healing. Take the drugs and hope your body heals.

Healthicine is the art and science of healthiness.  After you leave the doctor's office, after you take the prescription, after you are 'healthy' according to the doctor (eg. not sick), you can still benefit from the art and science of healthiness.

This diagram shows the relationship between medicine and healthicine.  Medicine is to the left of  the red line of diagnosis. Once an illness is diagnosed, medical techniques are used in an attempt to treat the 'illness'.  These technique is not always appropriate.

Some illnesses strike from external sources - bacteria, bullets, toxins and viruses.

But many illnesses are the result of declining healthiness. In these cases, a medicine is not the best solution, not an appropriate option.

Healthicine is the entire study of healthiness from perfect health to illness and death. Medicine is a small
subset of healthicine.

In most cases, medicine is not required. Most of the time, you are not sick.  But you can always be healthier. In many cases, medicine is not appropriate. Sometimes, when you are sick, it is because your health has deteriorated to the point where an illness is diagnosed. Medicines are constrained by diagnosis. Diagnosis is an artificial constraint designed to protect the interests of doctors, and marketed to protect the interests of patients.

It is clear that if your unhealthiness is to the right of the diagnostic threshold - you don't need medicines, you need healthicines.  In many cases, when your health is to the left of the diagnostic threshold - healthicines are still the most effective approach. But healthicines are seldom prescribed for illness, just medicines.

Many fields of medicine, and many drug manufacturers, are trying to move the 'diagnostic threshold' to the right, so that drugs can be prescribed earlier. Attempts to 'find cancer earlier' are a common example.  Moving the diagnostic threshold is presented as a 'preventative technique', but it often leads to an increase in 'false positive' diagnoses.  It also leads to the use of drugs, when healthicines are required.

We need to examine the diagnostic threshold more scientifically.  If an illness is really an unhealthiness - maybe the diagnostic threshold should move to the left for that illness. Or we need to examine treatment alternatives more scientifically.   No matter where the diagnostic threshold resides, we need to study all of the alternatives, and continually test the most effective ones - not just the 'latest new drug'.

We use drugs to treat diagnosed illness.

We use healthicines to improve our healthiness.   To reverse unhealthiness.

We need scientific studies of the differences between illness and unhealthiness.  We need to choose the best alternative for every illness and unhealthiness, and keep improving our choices.  We need the freedom to choose - and the ability to study and document choices and results.

http://www.personalhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/p/subject-index.html
You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of healthiness,
tracy

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

What is Health Freedom?

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

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Healthicine: The Art and Science of Healthing

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.

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

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

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

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

www.personalhealthfreedom.com

Are you Sick? Or just Unhealthy?

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

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

www.personalhealthfreedom.com 

Don't Like Analysis

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

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Measurement of Healthiness Part 1: Measurements, Summaries and Goals

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

ps. If you enjoy my posts, please share - and you might LIKE my facebook page. 

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Are the richest people the healthiest people?

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

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Personal Health Freedom

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

Alberta Views Magazine

Re: The Urge to Purge article - November 2011

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

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

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 the squares.  And he thinks that anyone who does is a bear (or worse, a quack).

Enough ranting about Barrett.  What about detox? 

The article subtitle 

“Cleansing and detoxing isn’t scientific, so why do so many Albertans do it?”

Let’s deal first with the technical error, the statement that “detoxing isn’t scientific”.  I suggest you look up scientific in a dictionary.  Trees are not scientific. Drugs and treatments are not scientific.  A healthy diet is not scientific. Scientific defines 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 phrase appears again in the conclusion – it’s just as silly there. And wrong too.

I think you meant to say 

“there is no scientific evidence to support 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 me at 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 to define 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 from illness.  No-one bothers to measure health – our medical systems only measure illness.

Let me give a little example to clarify. Let’s talk about two 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 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 cold every 1 or 2 years.  Her colds typically last 3 to 5 days and she suffers only minor systems.

That’s what the medical system knows about Alice and Zizi.  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. And Zizi, because she is generally not seriously affected by her colds – has almost no contact with the 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 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 by the (so called) ‘health system’, because the ‘health system’ is in fact a ‘medical system’, 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 the differences between them.  Our medical system 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 got a 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 was healthier, 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.  

How would we obtain a 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 longer. That a health measurement of one day, or even 3 days is irrelevant to health status, only relevant to ‘illness status’.

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

I believe an objective test for healthiness must ignore the cold, 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 scientific method.  Detox proponents don’t seem to care 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’t like the scientific method (except when it is used for medical purposes). 

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

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

If detox diets are about health, not about illness, then we need a scientific test to measure the health of people before, during and after the detox treatment.  We might search for a similar scientific test to use as a model.  Search away.  There are, at present, NO SCIENTIFIC STUDIES of the effect of any substance, treatment or action on HEALTH.  There are only scientific studies of the effects of substances, treatments and actions on illness.  Detox is about health, not about illness. Illness is not health.

So, let’s suppose that detox improves your health. I’m not saying it does – I’m interested in science.  But let’s suppose that a specific detox treatment improves your health, by x percent, on average. 

All tests by the ‘scientific medical system’ will not detect nor measure the improvement.  Our medical systems and our medical tests do not measure the difference between Alice and Zizi.  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, detox kits might release toxins and thus actually harm your health status – then we need to take the measurement further.  It might be, for example that using a detox kit decreases your health for several days, or even a few weeks – but after that, your health is actually better.  Maybe this happened to you? Sort of like learning – first seem to go backwards and then rebound later.

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

So, is detox scientific?  Duh.  The people who, like Stephen Barrett, claim that ‘detoxing does not improve health’ are not scientific – because there has never been a test.  But Barrett 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 because there are no benefits?  Or is it a deficiency in the scientific tests?  We don’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 is better if I do it regularly.  I know my 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 health effects.

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

He has not learned to think in terms of health. 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 new paradigm.  Aparna might understand unconsciously 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 then explain it to you.

Your conclusions, two:

  - detox may have its merits, but it is not scientific

  - detox diets don’t remove harmful substances from the 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 scientific studies 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 of detox.  Frankly, no one has scientifically measured the health effects of Vitamin C nor penicillin.  We have only measured their illness effects. 

The statement that “Detox diets don’t remove harmful substances from the body” is also unscientific, as is most of what Barrett says. 

There are no scientific studies concluding that detox does not remove toxic substances from the body. Proving that a detox diet does not remove a harmful substance from my body requires an exhaustive study of detox diets along with an exhaustive study of what is excreted from my body – through various orifaces, before I am on the detox diet and then again while on the detox diet and again after I complete the detox protocol. This study has not 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

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: