What is a drug?

In the USA, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act defines a drug as : (1) a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (2) : a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease (3) : a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body (4) : a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device.

The FDA says: "The legal difference between a cosmetic and a drug is determined by a product's intended use."  


In Canada, the Food and Drug Act defines a drug as: 
“drug” includes any substance or mixture of substances manufactured, sold or represented for use in
(a) the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal physical state, or its symptoms, in human beings or animals,
(b) restoring, correcting or modifying organic functions in human beings or animals


The European Union  DIRECTIVE 2001/83/E defines a 'medicinal product' as: 
(a) Any substance or combination of substances presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease in human beings; or
(b) Any substance or combination of substances which may be used in or administered to human beings either with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or to making a medical diagnosis.

What's wrong with this picture? 

It seems to say that the difference between a drug, and a non-drug depends on the use.  But if you read more carefully, that's not what it says.  It really says, in simple English:

"The difference between a drug, and a non-drug is defined by the way the product is marketed." (intended for use, sold or represented for use in, presented as having properties for). 

If it looks like a drug, and walks like a drug and talks like a drug - it makes no difference at all. It's not a drug until the paperwork is done.

But if the marketing paperwork to the government says: 

in the USA: "a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease"

in Canada: "substances manufactured, sold or represented for use in

(a) the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal physical state, or its symptoms"

in the European Union: "presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease in human beings".


If the marketing department says it can be used to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat or prevent disease, - it is a drug. That is the only requirement for a drug.  Thus, everything and anything can be a drug - if it is marketed as a drug.  Of course it must pass some significant paperwork hurdles - but these are easily managed by large corporations and their lawyers. 


Note: to create a drug in any of these countries, it is not necessary for the drug to be particularly effective, nor for the scientific or medical community to believe that the drug is effective.  Nor is it necessary for the drug to be safe in all situations.  It is only necessary to pass the paperwork tests. Government offices cannot and do not pass judgement on the efficacy of any drug application.  Governments pass judgement on the paperwork. Many new drugs cannot truly be tested for effectiveness, nor safety, on the general population until after they are in public use for many years, possibly even decades. 

It is easily seen that one of the problems with the USFDA, Health Canada, and European Unions definition of a drug is that there is little said about what is 'not a drug'. Almost everything can be defined as a drug.  

This has lead people to ask if water is a drug - because it can be marketed to prevent and cure dehydration (they failed due to the fact their the paperwork was not completed correctly). And it lead me to blog that the wind is my drug, because I claim it makes me feel better.


We need a different definition of a drug.  


Wikipedia says: "A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function. There is no single, precise definition, as there are different meanings in drug control law, government regulations, medicine, and colloquial usage."


Webster's Dictionary says: "a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication".  


We need a definition of DRUG, from a health viewpoint. 

Is there a simple way to delineate between drugs and non-drugs from a health viewpoint.  A definition not depending on a marketing department.  Rather a definition that depends on science and facts about our health and healthiness.

The first thing we should recognize about drugs is that they are almost all toxic by design. Drugs are designed to throw your health system off balance, to counter the imbalance of your illness, not to create health. You need a prescription for drugs because they are toxic.

If we want to define drugs, we need a way to separate the things we consume, through our mouth and other orifices, including our skin, into drugs - and not drugs. All three of the official government definitions make no such distinction.  Everything is a drug.  Everything should be regulated as a drug.  This is, frankly, a ridiculous situation.

Can we define drugs in a useful fashion?  Can we define non-drugs?

A healthicine is a substance that has a direct effect on the balances of healthiness. Healthicines are non-drugs. That effect might be positive, or if the healthicine is deficient or excessive - it will be a negative effect.


A drug is a substance that has an effect on illness.  Drugs have an indirect, usually negative effect on the balances of healthiness. This negative effect is designed to throw the illness off balance and allow your body to heal.  Or sometimes the illness is designed to simply trick your body into 'feeling healthy', by minimizing symptoms. 

Water is not a drug. If you are dehydrated, water still cannot be a drug.  Water cures dehydration, or it restores the balance of hydration - but it is not a drug. Water is necessary for healthiness.  A deficiency or an excess results in an illness and possibly death.

Can we extend this distinction to other substances - it gets a bit more complicated. If you have a Vitamin C deficiency, taking Vitamin C to 'treat' the deficiency is not taking a drug - any more than eating oranges is taking a drug.

Vitamin C can also be used as an injection to treat a serious inflammation.  In that case the Vitamin C is not addressing a normal Vitamin C deficiency, it is being used to tackle a health problem that is best treated by an excess of Vitamin C. Vitamin C has a negative effect on the problem - the inflammation - note, inflammation is normally a healthy response to stress. Administering an excess of Vitamin C, or any substance, for a therapeutic effect separate from the Vitamin C health balance, is administering a drug.

Is this a clear dividing line?  Maybe, maybe not.  The government definition of drugs for sale needs to be a clear, black and white, legal definition.  But the definition of drugs for health, and for personal healthiness, has many shades of grey, ranging from black to white and every shade in-between, possibly even different colours.

A healthy definition of ''drug" needs to be open to dispute and discussion. The government definition is like a proclamation from God, there is not room for argument, not way to dispute the decision. This is not a healthy definition. It is not a democratic definition. It is not a 'freedom' definition.  I believe in Personal Health Freedom.  The freedom to differ.

All illness and disease are be caused by an imbalance, a deficiency or excess of genetics, nutrition, parasites, toxins, stress, growth (including healing and immune systems) - or a combination thereof.http://personalhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2011/10/hierarchy-of-health-primary-and.html

A drug is always an excess. In most cases, if you are healthy, a drug is toxic to some aspect of your health. You need a prescription - a doctor must sign that you 'need the drug'. When you are ill, the drug may have a beneficial effect. By design. Drugs are not designed to fix health imbalances. Drugs are not nutrients. Drugs are not designed to cure - they are designed to create an 'opposing imbalance' so that your body can heal.

All drugs have 'side effects'.  Why is that?  Because all drugs are toxins - they have toxic effects.  If they didn't have toxic effects, they would have no effect at all.  In some cases, the toxic effects are intended.  That's the 'design' of drugs. But in many cases the toxic effects are unintended, or even unknown. Generally unknown until many people fall ill or die. Mercola tells us that drugs kill more people than car accidents in the USA. 

Are some drugs worthwhile?  Are some drugs the 'best treatment'?  Yes.  Of course. If you have a bacterial infection, the best treatment might be a toxin that kills the bacteria, but has minimal effect on your health and healthy cells.  An anti-biotic.  However,  most, possibly all antibiotics kill some healthy cells as well. 


We need to search for health, not illness. We need to search for 'heals', not 'cures'.  We need honesty and openness about treatments; to measure which treatments have the best effect on any illness, not which is the 'latest (untested on the public at large) drug'. 


New drugs have the most potential for danger. We need a health paradigm, not an illness paradigm. We need a healthicine paradigm, not a drug paradigm. 


Yours in health, tracy
www.personalhealthfreedom.com

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

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

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

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...

The Scientific Measurement of Healthiness

Can we measure healthiness scientifically?

Note: this post was written at the beginning of my explorations of Healthicine. The book:
Introduction to Healthicine: Theories of Health, Healthiness, Illness and Aging , published in early 2014, provides a much more comprehensive, up to date view of health and healthiness - as well as a framework for measuring healthiness.

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

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Personal Health Freedom

Mercola on Health Liberty

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.

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: