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: 

What is a 'primary illness'?

We have a definition of health, from a health perspective, as opposed to the more traditional 'medical perspective'.  We have an understanding of the primary causes of illness, from a health perspective as opposed to a more traditional medical perspective.

We can define 'primary illness' as an illness that is the result of a single primary cause.  Scurvy is a primary illness caused by a deficiency of Vitamin C.  Dehydration is a primary illness caused by a deficiency of water. Water intoxication is caused by drinking too much water.  Broken bones can be caused by too much physical stress.


We have identified 6 primary illness factors, 12 primary causes of illness - deficiency or excesses of genetics, nutrients, parasites, toxins, stress, growth and healing.  Each of those may have hundreds of 'primary illnesses', many of which are not studied by our medical establishment.


The primary cause of illness, and the causes of all primary illnesses are simple imbalances.  Once we realize this, we can see that many illnesses have no name and are not studied.   In this article, I focus on primary nutritional illnesses:

a) we know of over 100 individual nutrients that are essential to health. We do not have scientific agreement on which nutrients are essential to health.

b) therefore, over 100 individual primary illnesses can be caused by deficiencies of individual nutrients

c) and, presumably, over 100 individual primary illnesses can be caused by excesses of individual nutrients

Some of these illnesses are clearly understood when the deficiency is severe, but not well studied when the deficiency is not severe. Severe deficiency of Vitamin A is known to cause blindness, poor immune system function, and poor bone growth.  Mild Vitamin A deficiency?  Not studied as far as I know. Is the name given to mild Vitamin A deficiency - 'Vitamin A deficiency' or is there no name?  What is the test for Vitamin A deficiency?  I believe is no well accepted, effective test for Vitamin A deficiency - I can only hope that someone proves me wrong someday.

Vitamin B1 deficiency causes beriberi - or is beriberi the name of severe Vitamin B1 deficiency? What is the name of, what are the symptoms of low level Vitamin B1 deficiency? What is a good test for minor Vitamin B1 deficiency?

Nutrition is the foundation of health.  Nutritional deficiencies and excesses can, in many cases be prevented by simple positive or negative actions.  Consume nutrients that are deficient, avoid or minimize nutrients that are in excess. Nutritional prevention is the most powerful tool of Personal Health Freedom, because it is most easily affected by personal choice. Personal choice is especially important in light of the poor quantity and quality of information about nutritional deficiencies and excesses.

Nutritional illnesses are also very easy to acquire.  Simple in-attention to diet, dietary drift, or dietary simplicity (meat and potatoes diet, pizza diet) can easily result in minor nutritional deficiencies in a very short time period - and severe nutritional deficiencies over a long period.

But are they detected? Health deficits (illnesses) is typically ignored until they become severe illnesses.

We often think of ourselves as Perfectly Healthy, in truth we are probably all suffering from some health deficiencies that are not measured.  Our bodies have amazing power to overcome the dis-advantages of minor health deficits and even severe health deficits.  The medical paradigm does not recognize a health deficit until it becomes an illness to be treated. By this time, may primary illnesses or health deficits have combined to create a complex web of causes, symptoms and illnesses.

Illnesses are mysterious entities, identified by symptoms, not by causes. Thus, the natural reaction is to treat the symptoms rather than search for causes.  If you go to a doctor because you have a bad cold - the cold may be treated.  It is unlikely that your immune system will be tested, and less likely that you will be tested for any of the many primary causes of a weak immune system.

From one point, this is understandable - the medical establishment is, as they saying goes, 'up to their ass in alligators'.  But it is time to think about draining the swamp.

We need a methodical, scientific study of illnesses and primary illness if we are to move our understanding of health beyond the current medical paradigm.

And until we have the results of these studies, and maybe long after - we need the freedom to choose our nutrients, our foods. Many of governments are actively working to limit the nutrients we can consume - and also to limit the foods that can be studied in scientific studies. These limits are put forth as 'consumer protection legislation' - they are often simply health freedom limitations and a recipe for a health deficient future.

Health be with you.

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Health and Illness = Light and Darkness?

I like to think in parallels.  Can we draw a parallel between the concepts of light and darkness and our understanding of health and illness?

Illness is easily compared to darkness, or dark corners.  It is often hidden away, difficult to discern or recognize.  We can imagine a transition from light to darkness, corresponding to the similar transition from healthiness to illness. We often speak of the darkness of mental illness, the blackness of unhealthy tissue, and we know that black stools can indicate internal bleeding.  Health is viewed as bright and alive with colours.


Like most parallels, this comparison provides some useful insights.  It closely matches the 'medical paradigm' where illness is bad and health is good.

It is a useful metaphor - but its weakness is a focus on illness.  We need a metaphor that has a focus on health.  And as we develop a metaphor for health, as we view illness and health thru a different lens, we will see things that could not be seen thru the medical paradigm.

Healthiness is not measured by brightness, nor colour, it is measured by balance. The more our nutrition, cells, tissues, organs, etc are in living balance - the healthier we are. Health is the living balance between deficiency and excess. Our bodies are always working to maintain the balance - when we lose balance - we become ill and may die. When we view health as thousands of balances, and illness as being severely out of balance - it is easy to imagine that we have many small illnesses all of the time.

We cannot shine a light on illness to create or improve health.  We cannot improve health by 'cutting out' the darkness (illness). We can only improve health by changing the balance.  I often use Vitamin C as an example, but you can substitute many health factors and come to similar insights.

Viewed through the medical paradigm, scurvy is illness, or darkness.  Scurvy can be prevented by consuming sufficient Vitamin C.  If scurvy is present, it can be treated with Vitamin C. The effects of severe scurvy cannot be 'cured' - if you lose teeth because of scurvy, Vitamin C will not grow them back. This is a useful paradigm to prevent or treat illness, but a poor paradigm to optimize health.

Viewed through the healthy balance paradigm, scurvy is not simply an illness, it is an imbalance - a prolonged deficiency of Vitamin C. If you are suffering from a deficiency of Vitamin C - you can improve your health by adding Vitamin C to your diet. It is useless and trivial to say "Vitamin C prevents scurvy" because it is the same saying "Vitamin C prevents Vitamin C deficiency". Vitamin C does not 'cure' a Vitamin C deficiency.  Vitamin C does not prevent, nor cure scurvy.  A deficiency of Vitamin C is scurvy.  The medical paradigm only recognizes this when the deficiency is severe and prolonged. It may well be that people who are exposed to prolonged minor deficiencies of Vitamin C, or severe short deficiencies of Vitamin C develop conditions exactly like scurvy - but on a much smaller scale, not recognized as 'illness'.  When we can accurately measure 'healthiness', as opposed to only measuring 'illness', we will see the effects of Vitamin C deficiency earlier and understand much more about healthiness.

The challenge, even in the simplest situation, is to determine what is 'out of balance'.  The symptoms of prolonged severe Vitamin C deficiency are well documented and easily recognized - and named scurvy.  However, a minor Vitamin C deficiency has symptoms in common with many other problems.  So, how can you know if you are suffering from a minor Vitamin C deficiency?

Medical researchers do not attempt to define the 'healthiest' intake of Vitamin C.  Medical researchers cannot even agree on the recommended 'minimum intake' of Vitamin C.  The United Kingdom Food Standards Agency recommends a minimum of 40 mg per day.  The World Health (so called) Organization recommends a minimum of 45 mg per day (although they claim to be a 'health organization' they do not make a recommendation for optimal health). Health Canada (so called, they also do not make a recommendation for optimal health) recommends 75 to 90 mg per day as a minimum.  The National Academy of Sciences in the USA recommends 60 to 95 mg per day as a minimum.   Although each of these numbers may be presented as the 'recommended healthy intake', the numbers are very specifically designed to be used by prisons, armies, schools, etc to ensure that minimum nutritional needs are met.  No official organization recommends a 'healthiest daily intake of Vitamin C', or of any nutrient.

How can you decide what is healthiest intake of Vitamin C for you?  This is your personal health decision. You need the right to decide for yourself - your personal health freedom.

Vitamin C is a health factor that has a very wide 'healthy balance' area.  Our bodies can compensate for low or high consumption of Vitamin C quite effectively.  Vitamin C is very well tolerated in excess, or as  deficiency for short periods of time. In contrast, a deficiency of oxygen can have rapid, severe consequences while selenium and iron can have toxic effects at very low levels.  In each case, health exists at the balance between deficiency and toxicity.  If we try to understand this using the light vs darkness paradigm, it is as if there is only light in the centre - and darkness at both ends of the balance.

A healthy body maintains thousands of health balances, as best it can.  When one or more of the health components goes out of balance, your body does its best to compensate and to bring you back to balance.  When you lose your ability to maintain the balance of life, you tip and die.

Can you be perfectly healthy?  Can a light be perfectly bright?  Maybe, just before it destroys you.  I love photography, but I can't take a picture unless I can see both light and darkness.

Can your body be only 'healthy' with no 'unhealthy' components? No.  Your body is composed of hundreds of different types of cells.  Each cell type lives, divides and dies at a clearly understood rate.  Some of your cells are young and vigorous.  Some are dead or dying.  This is a normal aspect of our healthy state.  Our healthy balance does not just exist for a moment, it is a living balance always adjusting and moving forward.

Is health and illness like light and darkness?  This useful metaphor is insufficient to a full understanding of health, and of health freedom.  We need to move beyond it - to a new paradigm with a focus on health. A healthy balance.

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Toothpaste Rant

Today is senior's day at the local drug store - time to stock up on supplies.  But not toothpaste evidently.  I generally buy Sensodyne Original.  I used to buy it there. Not that I'm partial to Sensodyne, just that it is one of, possibly the only toothpaste commonly available (outside of health food stores) toothpaste that does not contain fluoride.  But, as the clerk said "If it's not on the shelf, we don't sell it."

My local drug store, like most big chains, has over 50 different flavours of toothpaste.  I say 'flavours', because there is only one basic 'formula', and only four or five different brands - most of the 50 different entries made by Crest or Colgate, followed by Sensodyne.  Every one of the 50 different toothpastes contain fluoride.

I have seen studies suggesting that fluoride reduces cavities.  Ditto for triclosan.  I'm not interested.

I would be interested in scientific studies if they were 'scientific' enough to take ALL of the known recipes for toothpaste and test them against each other, and publish all of the results.  And if a new toothpaste recipe is proposed, let it go thru the same tests.  Using scientific tests to find the BEST TOOTHPASTE would be a great idea, and a great ongoing project - where short term and long term results could be measured.  That's how scientific studies of medicines should be designed.  What are the short term results?  What are the long term results?  Most people use the same toothpaste recipe for decades.

But, scientific studies seldom, if every take the holistic approach to science - because they are designed to help market a specific drug or product.  So called 'scientific studies' are generally battles between A (the proposed new product) and B - and are only published if A wins by a conclusive margin. If A loses, the study may need to be re-defined. That's one of the reasons scientific studies are generally 'short term'.  The company wants to get the winner to market.  Most company funded 'scientific studies' are about as useful as the 'scientific study' showing that n percent of people prefer pepsi over coke.  You can make the test as 'scientific' as you like - the results are still garbage.

So much for Health Freedom in the toothpaste department.  As near as I can tell, Crest does not produce a toothpaste without fluoride.  Colgate produces many different toothpastes - only one that does not contain fluoride.  Ditto for Sensodyne.  My local drugstore does not sell a single toothpaste that does not contain fluoride.

Now maybe fluoride is good for your health.  Maybe not.  I do know that more than 10 countries have banned the addition of fluoride to water supplies - but still allow fluoride toothpaste.  I know that fluoride toothpastes have warnings on the package that say 'do not swallow' - and frankly, I don't want to brush my teeth with something that is not safe to swallow.

I want the freedom to make my own decision. I’d rather choose between 2 real toothpastes instead of 50 flavours of a single toothpaste recipe.

So, I will not buy toothpaste at my local, big chain, grocery store, and I will not buy toothpaste at my local, big chain, drugstore - because they restrict my freedom to choose a toothpaste that does not contain fluoride.  I find it a bit strange that our so called 'freedom based capitalist system' results in stores that limit my choices to flavours instead of substance.

I believe in Personal Health Freedom - if you want to purchase a toothpaste that contains fluoride, more power to you.  If you want a toothpaste that does not contain fluoride - I hope you have a nearby health food store.  I'll be driving a few extra miles to get mine, when my Sensodyne Original runs out.

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Is Ramadan Good for Your Health?

We've come to the end of Ramadan and I thought I'd do some checking to see if Ramadan is good for the health of participants.  Turns out there is surprisingly little investigation of this question, and no definitive statements from medical researchers.  We might expect that - medical researchers are not HEALTH researchers after all.

There is surprisingly little definitive research results of whether fasting is good for your health.  Ramadan is a very special type of fasting - and perhaps more difficult to research. But why don't we know if fasting is healthy?

Studies of the effects of fasting on health fail due to the medical paradigm. A typical statement from the medical systems are like this WIKI quote " Benefits include reduced risks of cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, insulin resistance, immune disorders, and more generally, the slowing of the aging process, and the potential to increase maximum life span". Duh.. These are mostly medical benefits, not health benefits.  And the next step taken by the 'medical paradigm' is to measure the 'side effects' of fasting, as if fasting was a 'medicine'. I think trying to study health using the medical paradigm is a bit like trying to study darkness by shining a light on it.

Why don't we know if fasting is good for your health? Because we don't measure health.  We only measure illness.  And we don't have a solid framework to define and study health.  How can you measure health effects without a clear definition of health?

If you read my blog - you may know that I have developed  a framework for understanding and studying health, as opposed to illness. The primary components of health are nutritional health, cellular health, tissue health, organ health, systems health, body health, mind health, spirit health and community health.

With this framework we have useful way to study the effects of fasting on health. One step at a time.

What are the effects of fasting on:

Nutritional Health: at first glance we might think that fasting could not possibly improve nutritional health, but looking closer we can see at least two nutritional advantages.  First, if we eat the same, or similar foods repeatedly over a long time period our bodies are exposed to the toxins in those foods.  Every food contains some toxins.  By fasting, we stop our exposure to those toxins for the length of the fast, giving our bodies time to clear out and recover.  Secondly, many people fast by avoiding on some foods.  This may force consumption of more 'different foods'.  If the standard diet is deficient - the fasting diet may provide missing nutrients.  Both of these areas are potential rich areas of study - if we study health.  The first major stumbling block is that we don't have any validated, commonly used techniques to measure nutritional health.

Cellular Health: does fasting make our cells healthier?  I'm not sure we have any method of measuring overall cellular health. Can you imagine going to your doctor and she says "I'm sending you to the lab to test the health of your cells" - or even a subset "I'm sending you to the lab to test the health of your blood cells"  or "your skin cells". When we can measure cellular health, we can take the next step - to measure whether or not fasting improves cellular health in the short, medium and long term.  Of course we might learn that fasting improves the health of some types of cells and degrades the health of some other cells - there are hundreds of different types of cells in the body.

Tissue Health: does fasting improve tissue health?  Health proponents claim that fasting helps the body to clear toxins and improve tissue health.  Medical practitioners say... ?  Well, medical practitioners do not measure tissue health on a regular basis, so what could they say? Suffice to say they don't have any meaningful agreement on any meaningful statements. When we can reliably measure tissue health - we can take the next step and measure the effects of various types of fasting on tissue health.

Organ health: do you see a pattern here?  Medical practitioners research organ illness, but do not measure organ health in any useful fashion. It is not at all uncommon for someone to have a medical, be given a 'clean bill of health', and then rapidly succumb to organ failure that was not detected.  Because we don't measure organ health. When we learn to measure organ health effectively, we can measure the effects of fasting on organ health.

System Health: does fasting improve or degrade your circulatory system?  your lymphatic system?  your digestive system?  We don't measure system health, so how can we know?

Body Health: is the whole more that the sum of the parts?  The body is more than the sum of the cells, tissues and organs.  We need to learn to understand this more clearly.  To define 'body health' clearly enough that we have useful measurements of body health - separate from measurements of illness, before we can measure the effects of fasting on the body.  And when we speak of the effects of fasting on the body - our statement should be separate from statements about the effects of health on the liver, the respiratory system, etc.

Mind Health: is fasting good for your mind? Does it improve your memory?   Your calculation abilities? Your planning abilities?  In the short term?  Medium term?  Long Term?  We have techniques to make these studies - but there are no 'standard lab tests'. When we can reliably, expertly measure mind health - we can study the effects of fasting on mind health.  Mind Health studies may be the most difficult for our society to accept as a general practice, but it is an essential component of health measurement.

Community Health: does fasting improve community health?  Studies have shown that there are fewer crimes committed during fasting periods, like Ramadan. That is one component of community health.  What other components we should measure to understand community health?

Spiritual Health: does fasting promote spiritual health? It is an interesting question in light of the fact that most people fast based on spiritual beliefs.  But how do we measure spiritual health?  At present, we have no way to measure spiritual health - although we might have two fleeting impressions.  One - spiritual health exists and can be strong or weak in different individuals and in the same individual at different times in their life.  Two - measuring spiritual health might be dangerous from a religious or political perspective.

So.... Does fasting improve health?  We don't know.  Frankly, we don't reliably know if anything improves health (as opposed to avoiding or curing disease) - because we don't measure health.

I believe in Personal Health Freedom.  I believe we need to study health, separately from our studies of medicine, if we are to truly understand health.  This is one necessary first step to true Health Freedom.

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

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Health Protection vs Health Freedom

Last night I attended the FREEDOM IN CRISIS LECTURE TOUR lecture by Shawn Buckley.  It was a very interesting, enlightening presentation.  Shawn is a tireless (and as far as I can determine, mostly 'paidless') worker for health freedom, with great knowledge, insight and initiatives. There were many threads, and perhaps because I have researched health freedom - only one shocked me with it's intelligence. 

In Canada, as you may know, our governments are pressing for strong 'consumer protection' legislation.  Our government wants, not only the arbitrary restriction of your rights to purchase foods, medicines and even teddy bears - they also want very strong rights to order product recalls, to trespass and seize products deemed to be 'offending the regulations'.  

Shawn gave many examples of government's attempts and ability to protect us from healthy living. The True Hope story, where our government acknowledges that suicide deaths resulted from product restrictions.  The heart disease cure that brought hundreds of people back to health - how Shawn protected the seller in a legal challenge from the BC Medical Association.  And finally, how our government shut down production and sales of a Teddy Bear - because it has a heat pouch containing white rice, a dangerous health risk. 

Then Shawn reminded us about peanut butter.  Of course we all know about peanut butter.  Every year, people die from peanut butter.  But anyone can go to the supermarket and buy a big jar of peanut butter.  We need to ask, how can our government justify protecting us from white rice teddy bears, while allowing purchase and consumption of peanut butter.  

But then he took the leap that surprised me. Shawn has issued 'access of information' requests when he wanted information about government reasoning and activities.  Shawn is a lawyer - and legal processes are his forte. 

He has issued an 'access for information request' about risk.  But not what you might expect. You might expect Shawn to ask for the governments 'risk analysis' on several restricted products.  But no, that would be to simple.  Although it is clear the government has not done any risk analysis - it might be possible for them to create a risk analysis to justify the restrictions. 

Shawn Buckley has asked the government if they have assessed the risk created by restrictions!

Brilliant!  If the government is going to restrict our freedom because of a potential risk, they need to assess both sides of the risk. 

If our government is sincere about protecting our health, they need to demonstrate that sincerity with analysis and processes that protect us from regulatory errors.

We know that, in the case of the True Hope product, EmPowerplus, our government actions to 'protect the public' resulted in suicide deaths of several bipolar patients.  Government actions were taken against EmPowerplus without an assessment of the 'risk to the public'. And they were also taken without an assessment of the 'risk to the public' presented by the government regulations.  In the end, the courts decided in favour of TrueHope, and issued a ruling:
====================================================================
court ruling
‘The Defendants [Truehope] are not guilty’

Necessity. ‘The Defendants were overwhelmingly compelled to disobey the D.I.N. regulation in order to protect the health, safety and well-being of the users of the micronutrient treatment [EMPowerplus] and the support program.’ 
========================================================================================


Truehope was compelled by the courts to disobey the government regulations.  Our government did not appeal.  


If governments are to create regulations that restriction health freedoms, it is important that they:
 - weigh the risks associated with the regulation
 - weigh the risks associated without the regulation (eg. health freedom)
 - make a decision based on a comparison of relative risks
and be prepared and have a process to re-evaluate all restrictions when new information comes to light.

Or our courts will continue to tell our citizens to ignore the regulations to keep our health freedom.

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Star Trek Medicine vs measuring health

The main medical item seen on various Star Trek shows (and various incarnations) is the medical tricorder.  Star Trek uses many types of tricorders, or scanners used for various purposes.  The medical tricorder is used to scan humans, animals and occasionally aliens for signs of illness.

Even in the Star Trek future, there seems to be no tool to measure 'health', only a tool to measure illness.  This is demonstrated fully in Star Trek Minutiae episode 131 (not Star Trek)\ where the doctor says:

"I’m not picking up anything on my tricorder scan. He seems perfectly healthy."


Apparently, if you are healthy, the tricorder does not give a reading.  The quote from Beverly in STTNG First Contact: "It's a... new medical scanner. It's a little more precise than an X-ray machine."  The medical tricorder is a diagnostic device - not a health measurement device, nor a treatment device.

The most talked about medical scanner in today's technology is the MRI scan.  Does the MRI scan reveal anything about your health?  No. The MRI scan searches for 'abnormalities' - on the assumption that if there are no significant abnormalities detected - you are healthy.   Health is not measured.

I wish for a future where we can measure health, instead of waiting for illness to 'strike' and then attempting to diagnose the illness.

What would our medical systems be like, if we could measure health?

How would 'clinical trials' be conducted if we could measure health effectively?  

We should measure the health of all subjects before the clinical trial.  Then apply the treatment.  And after the trial - or even during the progress of the trial, measure the subjects' health again.  'Side effects' are a measure of illnesses caused by the treatment.  We should also measure the 'health effects' -positive, or negative.

What would our 'health systems' be like if we could measure health?  I think it will take a very long time to answer that question.  When we can measure health effectively, we will learn many new facts, come to many new understandings.  We will learn that specific actions that improve health in the short term - might be detrimental to health in the long term.  Or that some actions that improve long term health actually harm short term health.  This does not surprise us - but it would be very useful to have a measuring tool.

A specific exercise, running five miles, for example, might be shown to harm immediate health status, to improve medium term health status and slightly effect long term health status.  We don't know.

Of course it's not that simple.  Even with a toolbox that effectively measures health - it still takes 10 years to measure the effects of a ten year change in health activities. And a lifetime to measure the lifetime effect of lifestyle changes.  This is the major reason these changes are personal - each person has a right to make their own decisions about health actions because the truth will not be known until they are dead and gone.

I firmly believe that measuring health is a serious deficiency in our current health systems and practices.

What might we learn about cancer patients, for example, if we try to measure health?  I often hear or read quotes like 'a cure for cancer', 'he beat cancer, but it struck again', and 'she was in perfect health, but suddenly struck by cancer'.  Does cancer strike suddenly?  We know it does not.  It takes years for cancer to grow to a dangerous level.  Many, if not most people over a certain age, have some cancerous cells - and their healthy body is dealing with them effectively.  But some people have either a more serious 'cancer', or a body in 'poor health', that creates a medical emergency.  If we could measure the 'health' of all cancer patients - we might learn more than any 'cancer treatment clinical trials'.

We might also learn that cancer is not just a 'cellular' disease.  Cancer cells exist, but the critical issue in a specific cancer might be nutrient health, tissue health, or system health or a combination of health factors.

We will be better equipped to find the 'cause' of many illnesses, if we can measure health effectively.  There are many illnesses, like cancer, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, etc where the cause is not clearly known.  Our current medical system searches for 'a cure', perhaps because once an illness is detected - finding a cure is more important than finding the cause. What if we could find the cause?  In some illnesses, like arthritis, we know there are many potential causes - and each individual suffering from arthritis may be suffering from several causes.  But current treatments for arthritis, generally, - ignore the cause.

We will be closer to finding and understanding causes when we start to measure health on all seven dimensions: nutritional health, cellular health, tissue health, organ health, system health, body health, mind health, spiritual health and community health.

When a doctor says 'he has the heart of a 20 year old', what does it mean?  Does it mean anything useful, anything accurate?  When we start to measure organ health and organize and analyze these measurements by demographics, we will be able to see that he really has the heart of a 24 year old, or not. We will also be able to tell if specific groups of people have better nutrient health, cellular health, etc - not just 'they live longer, but we don't understand why' or 'they are less likely to get heart attacks, but more likely to get cancer'.

Our medical system often speaks of the 'gold standard' treatment for an illness.  What is the 'gold standard' for measuring nutrient health?  What is the 'gold standard' for measuring cellular health?  What are the gold standards for measuring tissue health, organ health, mind health, spiritual and community health?

The sad truth is that we do not have any standards for measuring health.  And few tools. We have many tools that measure illness - few, if any, that measure health.

I believe in personal health freedom. An important step to achieving personal health freedom is the development of a suite of tools to measure health.  If you know of tools that 'measure health', as opposed to measuring illness - please leave a comment, or drop me a note.   

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

Universal Declaration of Health Freedom

Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of healthiness.


Note: This declaration, prepared in 2010, has led to the book:  Healthicine: The Arts and Sciences of Health and Healthiness which expands on these concepts.

Full Version:
=========

Whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and...";
and
Whereas the United States Declaration of Independence says "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that amount these are life, liberty and...";
and
Whereas the Canadian Bill of Rights says "the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely, (a) the right of the individual to life, liberty...";
and
whereas life does not exist without health, and quality of life is first measured by quality of health, and life ends when health ends;
and
whereas liberty is fundamentally constrained by health, and poor health creates a deficit in the liberty;

therefore
a fundamental right of all people is "the right to pursue healthiness".

Thus, the Universal Declaration of Health Freedom states thus:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of healthiness.

-------  discussion  -----------

These three rights are fundamental rights of individuals and do not depend upon, nor infringe upon the rights of other individuals.  As fundamental rights, these rights are not dependent on any 'responsibilities', that might encumber non-fundamental rights, for example the right to property.

"The right to pursue healthiness" includes  the right to seek the highest qualities of personal and community health and to take actions that improve health.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Any action that threatens the health of an individual is a threat against the "security of the person".   Therefore it can be seen that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is perfectly aligned with the Health Freedom Declaration.

The United States Declaration of Independence states that " that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".  "Pursuit of happiness" a valuable right, and it can be seen that it includes the pursuit of healthiness.  What could be more happy than a healthy person?  Happiness might first be measured by healthiness, which includes physical, mental, spiritual and community health. Therefore, it can be seen that the United States Declaration of Human Rights is also aligned with the Health Freedom Declaration.

The Canadian Bill of Rights states that "the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property". Like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Canadian Bill of rights recognizes right to 'security of the person' and thus the right to the 'pursuit of healthiness'.  

The Canadian Bill of Rights muddies the water with the right to the 'enjoyment of property'.  Enjoyment of property is an important right in our society - and an important right to health freedom.  However, it is not a 'fundamental right'. By its very definition, the right to the enjoyment of property, most especially when the property in question is a limited resource like real estate, infringes on other people's rights to enjoy the same property. Thus, property is a 'secondary right', not a fundamental right.

===========================================================
You can find other declarations of health freedom:

 International Declaration of Health Freedom from World Health Freedom Assembly 2006.  A more in depth declaration of health freedom, although the text is a bit sloppy and could use a good editor.  Contains information that is useful for contacting other Health Freedom organizations around the world.

2004 - NHFC Declaration of Health Freedom "National", eg. United States view. Poorly written, unnecessary emphasis on privacy and law.  Some useful links and info.

Charter of Health Freedom  Canadian.  Wordy and specific to Canada.

Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: 

ps. If you enjoy my posts, please share - and you might LIKE my facebook page. 
My Healthicine Page
and the book: Healthicine: The Arts and Sciences of Health and Healthiness