ALL Hype? Almost! The Truth About "Natural" Healing -- Ten Things You Should Know 1 What IS It -- REALLY? Scientific "Alternative Medicine"? OR Psychosomatic Occult Superstition? 2 The Issues -- Widespread Claims & Misconceptions 3 Is It Safe? 4 Is It Scientific? 5 Is It Legal? 6 What's the REAL Problem? 7 Is It Enough? -- Growing Up REALLY Drug Free -- A True Story 8 Is It For YOU? 9 How Does It Work? -- Unconventional Concepts of Illness & Health -- You May or May Not Have Considered 10 How You Can Learn More -- Further-Reading Recommendations A Short "Guided Tour" based on sixty-years' research, observation, and personal experience. --------------------------------------------- Non-commercial, purely educational facts you need for freedom of informed CHOICE -- not merely informed CONSENT. Note: If you're FOR one choice and against another, just remember: It may be FOR you, but it isn't FOR everybody; so don't "make a religion of it" (or a "crusade" or an "inquisition", either) by ASSUMING we all need the same things and have the same personal values. WE DON'T! Grant everyone else the same freedom of choice you cherish. --------------------------------------------- Print Edition Copyright 2010 by LowTechConcepts.com Full-color-illustrated World-wide-web Edition Copyright 2007 -- available at: http://www.lowtechconcepts.com TERMS of COPYRIGHT: You may reproduce/print and distribute as many copies as you like; but, you may NOT SELL them FOR PROFIT, NOR ALTER ANY PART THEREOF AND TRY TO COPYRIGHT THE RESULT.  --------------------------------------------- "Natural Death" implies we were "designed" to die. Does "Natural Healing" imply we were "designed" to get sick? --------------------------------------------- Part 1 -- What IS It -- REALLY? A CONCEPT OF HEALING as old as life itself, truly natural healing is simply an extension ( and support ) of the continual repair and maintenance that goes on inside all living things. Imitated, corrupted, misunderstood, maligned, it is neither "psychic healing" nor "spiritual guidance", but true physical, biological healing -- "holistic" therapy (healing the whole living organism not just a "disease" or it's symptoms) -- learned from observing life in the NATURAL world, NOT the LABORATORY or the PARANORMAL. Is it "COMPLEMENTARY? alternative MEDICINE?" Depends on your definitions and objectives. It IS undeniably an emotional and controversial topic! Almost like religion. Maybe it IS some people's "religion". But for this discussion, let's try to focus on PHYSICAL life in the NATURAL world -- and FACTS. No hype! Neither "blind credulity" nor the "eternal skeptic". No "witch doctors" or "medicine man", either. Nor much of anything else you've heard, thought, or believed, probably. Not even "traditional meditation". Granted, SOME "psychological" therapies CAN be helpful, but when your home needs repairing, you need more than inner calm and a positive attitude. You need quality building materials and competent construction. Same with your body. And since "psychosomatic healing" (so-called "placebo effect") is the only concept many people have of "alternative medicine"/ "natural" healing / holistic therapy, no treatment that has strong spiritual ties to any religious or spiritistic origins will be considered (even though some of them also have non-religious, non-spiritual, entirely physical aspects); so we can concentrate solely on physical and biological therapies for the human anatomy and physiology and not be "comparing apples with oranges". The real focus, in fact, is not on any specific illness or therapy. Rather, since half the advertising and MOST of the objections regarding these diverse but interrelated healing efforts is so much hype, the main objective here is to draw attention to a BASIC CONCEPT nearly all non medical and other alternative physicians -- such as Chiropractors, Homeopaths, Naturopaths, Acupuncturists, and Herbalists -- share in common; explain the FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE between most of the "natural" or "holistic" healing therapies and allopathic medicine or "regular medicine" (also called conventional medicine, Western medicine, clinical medicine, mainstream medicine, standard medicine, and orthodox medicine); clarify the issues, separate myth from reality and answer widespread claims & common objections. 1b To those who insist there's a lot of quackery or "snake oil" in all of this it's freely acknowledged that many fads, unsubstantiated claims and other sensationalism are out there. ANOTHER NEED FOR SEPARATING MYTH FROM REALITY! But remember that some medical professionals who sharply disagree with one another call each other "quacks" also; while many people who have a negative MISCONCEPTION that all NON MEDICAL therapies have "spiritistic" connections forget that some medical doctors employ hypnosis. Surely, such a vitally personal matter SHOULD be approached in a calm, sober, enlightened manner. Yet, even with all the apparent progress in recent years in the (at least superficial) acceptance of alternative therapies, there seems to be a deep-down, unexplainable, almost religious feeling in most of us, especially in the "Western world" -- and that many of us would deny even having (but "actions speak louder than words") -- that it's somehow immoral, unethical, or otherwise wicked to undertake any form of health care without "consulting the gods" (the medical profession). On the "flip side of the coin" (anti-medical), if you've visited many of the alternative health information websites and you're like me, you could probably "feel the high voltage tension in the air" just reading some of them. Understandably, it's nearly impossible for someone who has frequently witnessed prejudice first hand or been very disappointed with a certain medical treatment not to have SOME lingering negative feelings. But the intention HERE is to strive earnestly for less emotion and more truly educational information, presented (hopefully) in a manner to make learning enjoyable. ( If you're new to all of this, there's quite a bit to absorb -- a brave new world for some; almost like the North American easterners who moved out west century before last -- and, yes, some of THEIR friends and relatives thought THEY were "crazy", too.) --------------------------------------------- It is sincerely hoped that you'll find something beneficial here. Please direct your questions, brief comments and other observations -- including constructive criticism -- to: http://www.LowTechConcepts.com/feedback.htm It's private, low-tech and non-commercial like this publication. --------------------------------------------- PLEASE NOTE! NOTHING in these pages is intended to diagnose, treat or cure ANY illness or disease; nor to prescribe, endorse, OR EVEN RECOMMEND any substance, therapy or other health care choice. All material is provided as INFORMATION ONLY for the exclusive use of persons wishing to take greater PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for their body and health or those desiring to defend the reasonableness of doing so. This work is privately funded, purely educational, non-commercial, non-political, non-religious, and strives to be as neutral and non-partisan in every other way as any entity exposing error can possibly be. While based on sources believed by the editor to be reliable, all statements not directly quoted from and referenced to other sources should be considered merely one person's unorthodox opinion.  --------------------------------------------- Some of the most misunderstood "facts of life" in "Western civilization" are not the kind we're uncomfortable with and consequently fail to teach the kids -- they're the covered-up and glossed-over kind we don't know to teach the kids. --------------------------------------------- Part 2 -- The Issues -- Widespread Claims, & Misconceptions To more and more individuals with all kinds of maladies, ailments illness and disease, the idea of a natural "cure" with natural "medicine" sounds like an ideal therapy, or at least a more gentle and harmonious approach. So, what IS all the fuss and furor, the debate, the controversial wrangling -- or sometimes, simply inner turmoil -- often over OTHER PEOPLE'S personal decisions? Another writer (and evidently keen observer), Dr. Daniel Callahan, introducing his BOOK REVIEW of Joel James Shuman's and Keith G. Meador's "Heal Thyself: Spirituality, Medicine, and the Distortion of Christianity" (Oxford University Press, 2003 ) in the Summer 2004 Johns Hopkins University Press "Bulletin of the History of Medicine" (Volume 78, Number 2, pp. 523- 524) expressed it this way: "A few years ago I organized a research project on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). I was drawn to the topic not as a CAM supporter but because I had been intrigued by the HOSTILITY that many physicians feel toward it". Sadly, that describes the attitude to a tee in a great many cases. But, why? There are a number of possible reasons (and many more "excuses") for skepticism, objection, even outright opposition; and if we're serious about "natural" healing, we'll most likely have to deal with them sooner or later -- preferably, without becoming antagonistic and "polarized" ourselves. (That would NOT be good therapy!) To encourage insight and understanding instead, let's examine some of the chief objections, misconceptions --- and realities: "Aren't non-medical therapies awfully risky, even dangerous?" "It isn't proven, scientific or "evidence-based" healing." "Is it moral, ethical, legal?" 2b Interestingly, the first response from the average individual if you state that you've chosen an entirely NON-MEDICAL approach to a certain ailment is: "What else IS there?" If any OTHER business, industry, or profession had HALF so successful a "monopoly" THEY would be "up to THEIR ears" in anti-trust litigation, wouldn't they? The prevailing misconception held by most people -- IF they even know about the other healing professions -- is that a Chiropractor, Homeopath, Naturopath, Osteopath, Acupuncturist, or Herbalist is not a "real doctor". In most states of the U.S. however, many of these professionals must be licensed by a state board and therefore not only be college graduates, but also finish their profession's equivalent of "Med School". Futhermore, many of them reportedly spend more classroom time studying the anatomy and physiology of the human body than most medical students. What the latter spend most of their time studying is described by several regular and medical dictionaries as well as the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) as "allopathic medicine". Other terms that have been proposed include: conventional medicine, Western medicine, evidence-based medicine, clinical medicine, scientific medicine, regular medicine, mainstream medicine, standard medicine, orthodox medicine, and authoritarian medicine. And while "medicine" is broadly defined in most dictionaries as "the art of preventing or curing disease" or "the science concerned with disease in all its relations" (which actually defines "pathology" - Gr. "pathos" = suffering and "ology" or "logia" = study of), Stedman's Medical Dictionary quite logically, correctly and simply lists the actual current customary use of the word first: "(med-i-sin) A drug". By that realistic definition, nearly all of the so called "alternative medicine" is actually alternative NON MEDICINE; and the term "allopathy" (al OP u thee -- from Gr. allos, other, and pathos, suffering) seems particurlarly insightful and foresightful to have been coined in the first half of the nineteenth century; especially in view of the current mandatory practice some countries of listing on drug labels and in drug advertising the known side effects of the drug -- the "other suffering" it causes. Could this be the real reason some in the medical profession dislike the term "allopathy" so much -- it's implications of breaking that famous Hippocratic rule of healing: "First do no harm"? This brings up the first major objection. RISK  --------------------------------------------- "Safety first, last and always"? --------------------------------------------- Part 3 -- Is It Safe? (Isn't It Dangerous?) Safety IS a valid concern, considering the fact that we're all, in a sense, "living on the edge". You've heard of that vital gaseous element so necessary for life that constitutes approximatelly 21% of the earth's atmosphere, oxygen? Well, it turns out (according to Material Safety Data Sheets that accompany Medical and industrial compressed or liquid Oxygen cylinders) that prolonged exposure to levels higher than 75% can cause central nervous system depression including headache, dizziness, drowsiness, poor coordination, slowed reaction time, slurred speech, giddiness and even UNCONSCIOUSNESS. And breathing greater than 40% concentration for 1 - 2 days by newborn, and especially premature, infants has been reported to cause blindness. (Journal, Indian Academy of Clinical Medicine Vol. 4, No. 3 July-September 2003 p.235; Kelly F.J. Free radical disorders of preterm infants. British Medical Bulletin 1993;49 (3):481-93.) That sounds pretty risky, doesn't it? (Of course, prolonged oxygen deprivation can be even MORE dangerous!) Now, if even something so "safe" and necessary can be dangerous when out of it's natural state and handled unwisely, everything else MUST carry SOME degree of risk. EVEN MEDICAL TREATMENT??? Or is that not supposed to be brought up in "polite society"? If not, the statistics are apparantly rather "impolite". An exceptionally comprehensive and candid "study of studies" was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 279 No. 15, April 15, 1998 (JAMA.1998;279:1200-1205). In their article "Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients -- A Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies", Jason Lazarou, MSc; Bruce H. Pomeranz, MD, PhD; and Paul N. Corey, PhD analyzed over 30 years of data from U.S. hospitals (which use only FDA approved prescription drugs with "professional" supervision) to obtain the overall incidence of SERIOUS adverse drug reactions -- defined as those that required hospitalization, were permanently disabling, or resulted in death. Based on the resulting percentages (of which they report VERY SMALL variation throughout the entire period) and a recent year's total hospital admissions, they estimated that approximately TWO MILLION hospital patients ANNUALLY have SERIOUS adverse drug reactions with approximately 100,000 FATALITIES (calling it the 4th leading cause of death in the U.S.! -- ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents, and automobile deaths). Dr.Barbara Starfield, M.D. (July 26, 2000 Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(4), 483-485. "Is US health really the best in the world?") indicates that America's TOTAL healthcare-system-induced deaths are the THIRD leading cause of death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer. According to several research studies in the previous decade, a total of 225,000 Americans PER YEAR have died AS A RESULT of their medical treatments: 12,000 deaths per year due to unnecessary surgery; 7000 deaths per year due to medication errors in hospitals; 20,000 deaths per year due to other errors in hospitals; 3b 80,000 deaths per year due to infections in hospitals; 106,000 deaths per year due to negative effects of drugs. Awfully risky sounding stuff there, wouldn't you say? So, by comparison, what's the danger of non- medical health care? Good nutrition? Surely not! Proper posture and physical alignment? Not likely! Oh! "It doesn't actually CURE anything." Well, let's get this one thing straight here and now. Drugs and surgery don't actually "cure" anything, either. Mostly they alleviate symptoms (sometimes life-threatening ones -- so they CAN be quite valuable to some folks at times), but usually they simply mask or cover up the symptom so it doesn't bother us. Either way, we get what many non- prescription medications promise: "Prompt, Temporary Relief". Naturally, we're all attracted to the "Prompt" part. When we're sick the last thing we are is patient. (The doctor who first started calling sick people "patients" was surely indulging in wishful thinking.) But we're inclined to overlook the "Temporary" part. Most non-medical therapies, on the other hand, concentrate on the cause of the ailment. Not the absolute root cause, mind you. No field of human knowledge really understands that completely. But, addressing the chief contributing causes often brings more lasting relief by means of the body's own built-in healing abilities. That's the only TRUE healing there ever is. (Not to say there are NO risks. See Part 8 -- "Is It For You" -- or keep reading; you'll get there.) This objective might also be described as a functional difference. Most drugs in one way or another tend to FORCE the living organism (animal or human) to respond biologically in a specific way whether or not it has the inner resources to do so successfully and whether or not it needs to accomplish something else first in order to heal itself properly. (If you're remodeling, you don't usually install new carpet 'till you've pulled up the old and cleaned up from the rest of the renovation.) The more-natural therapies try to supply the body what it needs to do IT'S work IT'S WAY, or help and encourage in any way possible and practical without arbitrarily "taking over" and perhaps inadvertently working AGAINST it's efforts instead of WITH it. Sure, this may take a little longer (and progress somewhat "unconventionally" at times), but it doesn't mean the therapy isn't working. To those who have never personally seen or experienced anything but the "Prompt, Temporary Relief" scenario this aspect of natural healing may sometimes be a bit "alarming"; and they may assume nothing is being done, someone is being terribly neglected, or "the patient's gonna die!" Granted, there's no therapy that ALWAYS works. REMEMBER THE 3rd LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH CITED ABOVE! If that's the risk you prefer to take, that's your choice and YOUR BUSINESS. But some of us for decades have seen and experienced reasons to feel much safer taking these other "risks" instead. ( If WE promise not to get all excited and upset over the risks we perceive YOU'RE taking and try to tell YOU what to do; promise YOU won't get all excited, upset and worried about OUR health care choices? ) "Ah! yes. But personal experience can be deceptive!" you're saying. "Is there any SCIENTIFIC evidence these natural therapies really work?"  --------------------------------------------- There's really very little, if any, absolute proof of anything. Only evidence -- proof only to those who accept the evidence. --------------------------------------------- Part 4 -- Is It Scientific? ( Or Merely Psychosomatic? ) Depends on what you consider "scientific". A rather ambiguous term these days; while "UNscientific" is almost as meaningless as the non- German world of the 1930's and 40's calling anyone they didn't like a "Nazi". Later, in the "Western bloc" it was "Communist", while the exact ideological counterpart living behind the "Iron Curtain" might be labeled a "Western Capitalist spy". Just empty rhetoric! All hype! True science, on the other hand, is full of meaning. Fascinating, beneficial, useful meaning. It surely isn't the only "light of the world", as some may be inclined to believe; but, exercised properly, (Writer/Astronomer Carl Sagan used to insist that science is more a method of thinking or way of learning than a body of knowledge. Hence the expression "properly exercised") it can dispel much darkness of ignorance. Not as another derogatory label, understand, but simply a lack of knowledge about something. The kind of knowledge and understanding DEFICIENCY that can breed not only superstition and fear, but also prejudice and even hatred. See how valuable truth is? We'll surely never have it all; but learning is what makes life interesting, while assuming we know so much we can reject other possibilities out of hand is the height of arrogance. You see, the "uncientific" charge under discussion originated with those in the best position to know better saying or implying that there are no positive or favorable "scientific" studies of any non- medical therapies; which was then repeated so many times by so many "information sources" that it has come to be considered "common knowledge" (implying "established fact", WHICH IT IS NOT). -------------------------------------------- Ironically (?) the U.S. Government "Office of Technology Assessment" on request of the Senate Committee on Human Resources "to examine ... current medical practices" reported on page 18 of their September, 1978 document " Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies" (NTIS order #PB-286929; Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 78-600117) "It has been estimated that only 10 to 20 percent of all procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial." Now, whose therapies are "unscientific", while their advocates CLAIM such inadequacy for "natural" health and healing? More hype? -------------------------------------------- THEREFORE ---- Low Tech Concepts "hereby presents for your viewing pleasure" the following minuscule sample of what one CAN turn up in only ONE SHORT EVENING'S research in MEDICAL journals (cited by folks like American Cancer Society, Cedars-Sinai Health System, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health & Human Services), IF ONE REALLY WANTS TO: ( One glance and you'll probably decide instantly you'd really rather not sift through all this, and that's OK for now. Just scan down the list quickly and look for two things: [1] "double blind" -- the "gold standard" scientific method in which neither researchers nor 4b participants know who's getting the real therapy or a placebo; and [2] a generic, non-drug, unpatentable substance or therapy -- vitamin, mineral, plant, enzyme, etc. -- meaning no "big bucks" in it; the most likely reason these studies are not as widely publicized but you have to "dig" for them. ) Tassman G, Zafran J, Zayon G. A double-blind crossover study of a plant proteolytic enzyme in oral surgery. J Dent Med 1965;20:51-4. Taub SJ. The use of bromelains in sinusitis: a double-blind clinical evaluation. Eye Ear Nose Throat Mon. 1967;46(3):361. Ryan RE. A double-blind clinical evaluation of bromelains in the treatment of acute sinusitis. Headache 1967;7(1):13-17. Vaxman F, Olender S, Lambert A, et al. Effect of pantothenic acid and ascorbic acid supplementation on human skin wound healing process. A double-blind, prospective and randomized trial. Eur Surg Res 1995;27:158-66. Glowania HJ, Raulin C, Swoboda M. The effect of chamomile on wound healing - a controlled, clinical, experimental double-blind trial. Z Hautkr 1987;62:1262-71. Weiss S, Scherrer M. [Crossed double-blind trial of potassium iodide and bromelain (Traumanase) in chronic bronchitis]. Schweiz.Rundsch.Med Prax. 10-24-1972;61(43):1331-1333. Cowie DH, Fairweather DV, Newell DJ. A double-blind trial of bromelains as an adjunct to vaginal plastic repair operations. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1970;77(4):365-368. Balakrishnan V, Hareendran A, Nair CS. Double-blind cross-over trial of an enzyme preparation in pancreatic steatorrhoea. J Assoc Physicians India 1981;29(3):207-209. Howat RC, Lewis GD. The effect of bromelain therapy on episiotomy wounds--a double blind controlled clinical trial. J Obstet.Gynaecol.Br.Commonw. 1972;79(10):951-953. Mori S, Ojima Y, Hirose T, et al. The clinical effect of proteolytic enzyme containing bromelain and trypsin on urinary tract infection evaluated by double blind method. Acta Obstet.Gynaecol.Jpn. 1972;19(3):147-153. Baumuller M. Therapy of ankle joint distortions with hydrolytic enzymes-- results from a double blind clinical trial. In Hermans GPH, Mosterd WL, eds. Sports, Medicine and Health. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica, 1990, 1137. Predel HG, Giannetti B, Koll R, et al. Efficacy of a comfrey root extract ointment in comparison to a diclofenac gel in the treatment of ankle distortions: results of an observer-blind, randomized, multicenter study. Phytomedicine 2005;12:707-14. Hawthorn effective against heart failure: double-blind study Tauchert M. Efficacy and safety of crataegus extract WS 1442 in comparison with placebo in patients with chronic stable New York Heart Association class-III heart failure. Am Heart J 2002;143:910-915. 4c Peikert A, Wilimzig C, Kohne-Volland R. Prophylaxis of migraine with oral magnesium: results from a prospective, multi- center, placebo- controlled and double-blind randomized study. Cephalalgia. 1996;16(4):257-263. (PubMed) Pfaffenrath V, Wessely P, Meyer C, et al. Magnesium in the prophylaxis of migraine --a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Cephalalgia. 1996;16(6):436-440. (PubMed) Mossad SB, Macknin ML, Medendorp SV, Mason P. Zinc gluconate lozenges for treating the common cold. A randomized, double-blind, placebo- controlled study. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:81-88. Ben-Arye E, Goldin E, Wengrower D, Stamper A, Kohn R, Berry E. Wheat grass juice in the treatment of active distal ulcerative colitis: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Scand J Gastroenterol 2002; 37: 444-449. Brand C, Snaddon J, Bailey M, et al. Vitamin E is ineffective for symptomatic relief of knee osteoarthritis: a six month double blind, randomised, placebo controlled study. Ann Rheum Dis 2001;60(10):946- 949. London RS, Sundaram G, Manimekalai S, et al. The effect of alpha- tocopherol on premenstrual symptomatology: a double-blind study. II. Endocrine correlates. J Am Coll Nutr 1984;3(4):351-356. Ogunmekan AO, Hwang PA. A randomized, double-blind, placebo- controlled, clinical trial of D-alpha-tocopheryl acetate (vitamin E), as add-on therapy, for epilepsy in children. Epilepsia 1989;30(1):84- 89. Shriqui CL, Bradwejn J, Annable L, et al. Vitamin E in the treatment of tardive dyskinesia: a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Am J Psychiatry 1992;149(3):391-393. Vetrugno M, Maino A, Cardia G, et al. A randomised, double masked, clinical trial of high dose vitamin A and vitamin E supplementation after photorefractive keratectomy. Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85(5):537-539. Wluka AE, Stuckey S, Brand C, et al. Supplementary vitamin E does not affect the loss of cartilage volume in knee osteoarthritis: a 2 year double blind randomized placebo controlled study. J Rheumatol 2002;29(12):2585-2591. Lind L, Wengle B, Wide L, et al. Reduction of blood pressure during long-term treatment with active vitamin D (alphacalcidol) is dependent on plasma renin activity and calcium status. A double-blind, placebo- controlled study. Am J Hypertens 1989;2(1):20-25. Schleithoff SS, Zittermann A, Tenderich G, et al. Vitamin D supplementation improves cytokine profiles in patients with congestive heart failure: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Apr;83(4):754-9. Trivedi DP, Doll R, Khaw KT. Effect of four monthly oral vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) supplementation on fractures and mortality in men 4d and women living in the community: randomised double blind controlled trial. BMJ 2003;326(7387):469. PLEASE NOTE !!! This list BY ITSELF is NOT INTENDED to prove ANY SUBSTANCE OR THERAPY is EFFECTIVE in treating ANY HEALTH PROBLEM ***** OR IS EVEN SAFE! ***** It's here merely to illustrate how utterly groundless the "uncientific" excuse really is. Probably the main reason this type of allegation has been so effective at suppressing alternative non- medical therapies (and many other rational efforts at true scientific and cultural progress) is because most of us seem a bit overawed by the opinions of scientific professionals. They're considered the "authorities on the subject" whom we're not supposed to QUESTION -- which really is not REJECTION but rather the ADVANCEMENT of science. --------------------------------------------- History indicates the feudal lords of the "Dark Ages" kept the peasants in subjection by keeping them ignorant. Now we voluntarily do it to ourselves! (I know. "Middle Ages" has become the "politically correct" term, but some of us still think the historians got it right the first time and that in many ways the description still fits -- even in our modern "Age of Enlightenment".) --------------------------------------------- We need to absorb the fact that scientists are only human. Not a shocking revelation? Consider the implications: Unlike the noble scientific ideal of completely impartial observation and reasoning, there is no human WITHOUT SOME personal bias and preconceived notions. Scientists, like the rest of us, often see what they already believe and, not looking for the unexpected, surely miss many astounding discoveries. --------------------------------------------- "The character or beliefs of the scientist are irrelevant. ... Arguments from authority simply do not count; too many authorities have been mistaken too often." -- Carl Sagan, "Sense and Nonsense at the Edge of Science" --------------------------------------------- Scientists also have to make a living like the rest of us. So sometimes they feel presured to find or "prove" what they know those funding their research would like them to find or "prove". Add to this their emotional, professional and financial need to be accepted by their peers -- who also as humans hate having THEIR beliefs challenged by new ideas -- and surely you see the potential. This doesn't make science useless; it has taught us much. It simply shows why it is not infallible and why we all need to think and reason and participate in the progress of learning and discovery instead of being helplessly intimidated and dominated by "experts" whom we seem to imagine know all there is to know. So far we've touched on "the good" and "the bad"; now we get to "the ugly" part: "Is It Legal?"  --------------------------------------------- How is it that otherwise rational, caring individuals (who would adamantly resent being deprived of THEIR choice of what's done to THEIR body) can view YOUR choice of health care (in U.S. of A. terminology) as a bill that just passed the House and Senate, and themselves as the President who has some awesome responsibility to veto it? --------------------------------------------- Part 5 -- Is It Legal? ( Moral? Ethical? ) UNDERSTAND FIRST: What you're about to read here is NOT LEGAL ADVICE! You need a LAWYER familiar with YOUR STATE, PROVINCE OR COUNTRY to ADVISE you or APPLY THE LOCAL LAW TO YOUR SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES. This editor cannot be relied upon even for legal INFORMATION. But an effort has been made to find sources for such. Hopefully the brief summary here will give you a start. Some information may seem vague or ambiguous until you examine it more closely. It appears that in the U.S. for example, the only WRITTEN laws about health care decisions are various state statutes authorizing what have come to be called "living wills" or more correctly "advance medical directives" or "durable power of attorney for health care" forms. However several IMPLIED laws have been recognized by at least the higher courts in the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, second sentence: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." About a hundred years ago the New York Court of Appeals applied this "due process clause" to medical treatment in Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92 (N.Y. 1914). Justice Cardozo stated: "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages." (Similarly some recent legal commentaries propose that the failure of a medical practitioner to respect a patient's advance directive is medical battery.) Many years later, this same court in re Storar, 438 NYS 2d 266, 273, 420, NE Zd 64, 71 (NY 1981) declared "the patient's right to determine the course of his own treatment paramount" and added that a "doctor cannot be held to have violated his legal or professional responsibilities when he honors the right of a competent adult patient to decline medical treatment." Shortly before this the American Medical Association Office of the General Counsel on p.24 of it's 1973 edition "Medicolegal Forms with Legal Anslysis" called the individual patient "the final arbiter as to whether he will take his chances with the treatment or operation recommended by the doctor or risk living without it." And added: "Such is the natural right of the individual, which the law recognizes." (Notice: "chances" and "risk" either way.) More recently in what might be called a "landmark case" for application of the "due process clause", the "common law right to bodily integrity" or self determination, and the "doctrine of informed consent", the United States Supreme Court in Cruzan v. Missouri 5b Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) stated: "The principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 2430 (1905), for instance, the Court balanced an individual's liberty interest in declining an unwanted smallpox vaccine against the State's interest in preventing disease. ... Just this Term, ...we recognized that prisoners possess "a significant liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Washington v. Harper, U.S. , (1990) (slip op., at 9); see also id., at (slip op., at 17) ("The forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person's body represents a substantial interference with that person's liberty"). Still other cases support the recognition of a general liberty interest in refusing medical treatment. Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 494 (1980); Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 600 (1979) ... This notion of bodily integrity has been embodied in the requirement that informed consent is generally required for medical treatment. ... The informed consent doctrine has become firmly entrenched in American tort law. ...The logical corollary of the doctrine of informed consent is that the patient generally possesses the right not to consent, that is, to refuse treatment. ...with the advance of medical technology capable of sustaining life well past the point where natural forces would have brought certain death in earlier times, cases involving the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment have burgeoned. -- See 760 S.W. 2d, at 412, n.4 (collecting 54 reported decisions from 1976-1988)." So the courts appear to agree with often-quoted British political/ethical philosopher John Stuart Mill's famous 1859 essay "On Liberty". He explains why this is "the ugly" part: "The will of the people ...means the will of the most numerous or the most ACTIVE PART of the people; the majority, OR THOSE WHO SUCCEED IN MAKING THEMSELVES ACCEPTED AS THE MAJORITY : the people, consequently, MAY desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this, as against any other abuse of power." ..."Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling;" ... "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. ...He cannot righfully be compelled ...because, in the opinions of others, ...it will be better for him, ...make him happier, ...would be wise, or even right. ...Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." ..."Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." Recent legal commentaries likewise note a widespread recognition of a firmly entrenched right to refuse medical treatment by competent patients and the guardians or surrogates of incompetent or unconscious patients; and add that although it is most often taken to mean the right to refuse a particular medical procedure, it extends to include the right to cease all medical care. So, if it's safe, effective, scientific and legal -- what IS the problem?  --------------------------------------------- If your friends don't have any more loyalty than to be embarrassed when you're different, maybe they deserve to be embarrassed. The question is: Do they deserve to call themselves your friends? --------------------------------------------- Part 6 -- What's the REAL Problem? Could it be a heart problem? No, not a cardiovascular disease. A mental/emotional problem. Now I don't know anyone who can even "read minds" accurately, much less "hearts". But we do seem to have an unintentional confession in the presentation by Professor Emeritus Paul Kurtz (State University of New York at Buffalo) to the first North American conference of the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Quoted in part (all-caps added): "In response to the growth of public interest in alternative medicine, many medical schools are now teaching courses in it. We thus are suddenly faced with the extraordinary growth of alternative therapies, often in COMPETITION with scientific medicine." "With THIS PROBLEM in mind, many of us associated with the skeptics movement decided to organize a systematic response to alternative medicine." -- "In Defense of Scientific Medicine" -- reprinted in "Science Meets Alternative Medicine: What the Evidence Says About Unconventional Treatments" (c)2000 by Wallace Sampson, M.D. and Lewis Vaughn. What was "this problem" again? "Competition"? (Is this a classic "Freudian slip", or what?) Competition isn't always about money, however. Remember, human nature also loves to feel important and, for some reason, to feel a certain power or control over others. For example, another speaker at the above mentioned conference related a well known U.S. congressman's testimony, some years ago, to a congressional subcommittee on "alternative medicine", about his personal experience with the (at the time) widely reported health benefits of a key ingredient in mammalian mothers' first milk, having bought some from a dairy farmer he knew, and even in "cold print" the feeling was evident that the speaker and his colleagues were just so proud of themselves that they got the dairy farmer arrested for "practicing medicine without a license". Of course, only the fanatically opposed get this ridiculous. There are many medical doctors who are genuinely interested in their patients' welfare, just like many (but not all) politicians sincerely desire to benefit the human race; but what either can accomplish is limited by the greedy (for money, power, prestige, etc.) system of which they're a part. And the truly caring physicians are far too busy doing just that to research better alternatives or even to keep up with such research done by others. The result is that many sincerely-held but inaccurate and very-one-sided viewpoints become widely accepted religiously and devotedly as "sacred". For many other people however, in a powerful (even if well- intentioned) system, the brain may be brilliant but when the mind-and- heart faculties of it cooperate in mischief with a self-assured disposition, the frequent result is all the classic symptoms of 6b "General Bullmoose Syndrome". Never heard of the ailment? Anybody remember political/social cartoonist Al Capp's satirical comic strip "Li'l Abner" set in Dogpatch, U.S.A.? His embodiment of private sector powerful interest groups was a fictional (yet very real) Washington, D.C. character he named General Bullmoose, whose overriding motto (obviously held up to ridicule) was: "What's good for General Bullmoose is good for everybody!". Well, if you've read the preceding "legal" section, you'll understand when I say Mr. John Stuart Mill and I are both here to tell you that what's good for General Bullmoose IS NOT good for everybody. Maybe not even for General Bullmoose! But HE ALONE should have to bear the consequences of BELIEVING it's good for him. In reality it seems we're all still in Dogpatch "paying" for General Bullmoose's inflated opinion of himself -- he apparantly has us believing it with him. We've been considered the "ignorant masses" so long most of us evidently see ourselves that way. Our ususal response to evidence of possibilities alternative to "expert" opinions is: "But they've had all this specialized training!", as if others are incapable of reading in their mother tongue and thinking. A professional opinion actually is just that --- an opinion --- SOMETIMES based on first-impression superficial evidence, never considering other possibilities. --------------------------------------------- "Prejudice means literally pre-judgement, the rejection of a contention out of hand, before examining the evidence. Prejudice is the result of powerful emotions, not of sound reasoning. ... But we cannot reject out of hand, any more than we can accept at face value ..." --- Carl Sagan, "Sense and Nonsense at the Edge of Science" --------------------------------------------- Such a viewpoint doesn't have to be hateful. It can in fact be motivated by the most noble, charitable, philanthropic, etc. intentions. It only needs to be strongly held without regard for, interest in, or even curiosity about the evidence. This neither describes all professional opinions nor is limited to professionals. It may, however, define the only "heart disease" that's contagious. Sadly, the most caring individuals are the most susceptible. The "established" way of healing ("allopathic medicine" in the Western world) is part of their "culture" -- their "religious upbringing", if you will, even if they profess none. Especially friends and family. They really care about you and want the best for you. But love can be as misguided as zeal. Ever see a toddler not quite mentally and emotionally ready for it given a new pet, and who "loves" the baby duck, kitten, puppy or whatever so much it gets literally "loved (squeezed) to death"? Zeal OR love that's mis- informed, uninformed, or even in-sufficiently informed can have similar results at any age. ( But especially in an "age" of "education" that teaches us WHAT to think instead of HOW to think; so that many seem afraid to think -- if not too mentally lazy -- and even more afraid of the people who are not afraid to think.) Even in this more "enlightened" twenty-first century, (as the following true story illustrates) it appears that a professional chemist with degrees from Oxford and MIT, Anthony Standen, picked a timelessly apropos title for his 1950 book: "SCIENCE IS A SACRED COW".  --------------------------------------------- Experience: That valuable possession that cannot be taken away even when we lose everything else (except our memory, I suppose), and from which (someone else's, preferably) we hope we can learn. --------------------------------------------- Part 7 -- Is It Enough? -- Growing Up REALLY Drug Free -- A True Story When people say or hear "drug free", almost no one thinks of being COMPLETELY drug free. Few would even want to; and, obviously, such a way of life is NOT for everybody. But the following true story was contributed by a person who HAS been completely drug free for over half a century, and is living proof of what CAN be done if you come to understand the workings and needs of the human body and try to exercise good judgement (not jumping on every fad that comes along). Also of some of the social consequences you should be prepared for should you even consider such a decision. ************************** I grew up with three non-medical health care professionals. My father and both grandfathers. They were Chiropractors. They didn't just "crunch bones" or "crack joints" as is the common misconception. My dad and my maternal grandfather particularly were very interested in nutritional and other biological therapies that affected things like body chemistry and metabolism, including acid and alkaline balance and elimination of toxic byproducts -- as well as educating their patients in simple natural things they could do for themselves to promote healing and good health. By the time I entered grade school, we had a close but ever widening circle of friends with whom we shared a rather unique set of values and by whom we felt very loved. Except --- when health care came up. We learned early on not to bring it up. After all, health care wasn't our religion, and certainly not a religious crusade. We felt doctors should be available, but not some kind of activists campaigning for a cause. But our friends had very strong feelings about it, so it would eventually come up anyway. To them, Medicine was the only true, serious and complete health care, and being different was a "mortal sin" or something. So even though we were very careful not to offer unsolicited health care advice (extremely hesitant even when asked) much less try to tell others how to make their health care decisions, plenty of folks were ready and willing to pass negative pre-judgement on our non-medical choices anytime they became public knowledge. They usually didn't even when we were asked. We learned to give very vague and evasive answers. They really were the best of friends in every other way, so we did everything we could to keep peace. At times though I felt I really didn't "belong" but was just an intruding stranger being politely tolerated, and soon decided not to "make a career of it", but to pursue what I hoped would be a more peaceful and productive life. It was bad enough that in some States of the U.S. at the time, Chiropractors were still fighting court battles to be recognized and licensed as health care professionals -- and over false charges from you-can-guess-who of "practicing medicine without a license". No medicine was ever used, of course. It was obviously just a fabricated excuse to restrain the "competition". 7b This gross intolerance, along with misleading information others would relate being given by their doctors, made me determined to take charge of my own health (good or ill) according to what I had learned growing up. Naturally, I received all the education Dad gave all his patients put together -- many times over. Talk about growing up drug free -- I've never even had so much as an aspirin. Not because I've never had pain. I was just never willing to suppress my warning system. Like removing the batteries from all the smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors in the house. Don't get me wrong. I didn't hate any medical doctors personally. Most of the few I've met were quite likable individuals. But after what we'd learned from many patients and from the "confidential" Medical newsletters Dad and Grandad would inadvertently receive as a result of having "Dr." in front of their names, I began to see Medicine's approach to illness as seriously flawed, and it's system as greedy and less than completely honest. Of course, no profession is perfect. But I decided I didn't want "mainstream Medicine" getting their hands on me under any circumstances. That decision may not sound very rational to you, but a lot of careful thought preceded it and I'm convinced I've had superior health care for my personal needs for over half a century. If only I didn't have to defend personal health care choices that are actually safer and more effective for me (and nobody else's business) or feel like I'm "walking on eggs" to keep from having to! (Scrambled eggs, anyone?) I didn't have to for a long time. In my youthful wanderings I stumbled upon a rather unique little sub-culture among the otherwise same kind of friends in an area that draws people from many varied backgrounds. As a result, everybody is different and seldom does anybody even seem to notice. Even when they do, friends like these don't have to understand everything to be understanding. It's been truly refreshing. I finally found out though, after becoming the 24-hour-7-day-a-week caregiver for my elderly invalid last-surviving parent who had put these same totally non-medical health care choices in writing in a DPA (Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care) form before becoming completely disabled, that down deep very little has really changed in western society. All the "natural" and "organic" advertising and all the complementary and alternative medicine "diplomacy" not withstanding. Naturally all these friends wanted to help, and those who could were exceptionally flexible and non-opinionated. But it only takes one or two latecomers who think they understand "perfectly", and actually comprehend nothing of what you're really trying to accomplish, (yet feel very strongly "duty bound" to set things "right" medically) to "spook the flock" or "stampede the herd". As I write this my "patient" has not even had visitors in months. I no longer feel the "refuge" here I found in the past and have nowhere else to go. (Do I just not belong in this part of the world, or is the human race this way everywhere?) But even worse, to see my dear friends so intimidated by such a powerful totalitarian system as to render some of them (even if unwittingly and unintentionally) too oblivious and intolerant to be capable of truly listening with genuine understanding to any other concept of healing has to be one of the saddest, most despicable things I've ever personally witnessed. --- Contributed (anonymous)  --------------------------------------------- You know what they say: "Everybody's different." --------------------------------------------- Part 8 -- Is It For YOU? Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be or that EVERYBODY should do it. Some people can live, work and function for a time in outer space, but it isn't for everybody. At least not according to NASA (U. S. National Aeronautics and Space Admini- stration). The last I heard the requirements for astronauts were still pretty high. To determine what's good for YOU: Your own needs, values, ablilties and limitations must be taken into account. Your total self. And, with "natural healing", how much of that "self" you're willing to put into it. One of the most common lines of fallacious health reasoning appears to go that if it's natural it's safe; and even doctors can never be absolutely sure how each medicine will react on each individual; so, if it's ok for them to "experiment", surely it's safe for us to do so using only natural therapies. But tell me: How would you feel about going to a doctor who you knew had never studied, but had found some other way to pass all the exams? Surely you see the point. If we're setting out to "heal thyself", we'd better "do OUR homework" too, hadn't we? We can't just blindly experiment, and expect to be "cured" or to have perfect health. We must be truly committed to this concept and to the lifetime of personal study and research that it requires -- as well as the time and patience it takes to change only one element of our regimen at a time and keep careful personal notes of the results. (Some friends and relatives may think we SHOULD be committed, but that's a different kind.) You may pay less in doctor bills, but you STILL have to "pay the piper", so to speak, and not everybody will be able or willing to do that. And "natural" doesn't automatically mean "safe". Some of the most toxic compounds known to humans grow "naturally" out of the ground. More reason to "do our homework"! Nowadays the specific meanings of "natural" apparently depend on what you're trying to sell but generally suggest a wholesomeness beyond human wisdom; not tampered with, artificially produced or modified in any way. Not nearly as mystical, magical or spiritual as it sounds, really. Still, by the above definition, we'll never live completely "natural" in THIS world. After all, is there any thing or any place on earth not affected in some way by human activity -- that often took place somewhere else on the planet? You just have to try to find the things that have been altered the least. And even something that's "good" and "natural" isn't necessarily good for everybody. If you know many people rather well, try naming three foods that nobody is allergic to. Another misconception can arise from the term "COMPLEMENTARY Alternative Medicine". While commendable if it means working together to benefit humanity, (and despicable should it be an effort of the profession "in power" to maintain total control of all "health care") the fact remains that not all therapies are as "compatible" as the term would seem to imply. Remember the somewhat startling news on national TV in some lands a while back that so "natural" and "harmless" a product as grapefruit juice could seriously alter the body's response to a number of prescription drugs? So, if you try to 8b "get the best of both worlds" you have even more "homework" to do and an even higher standard to search for in knowledgeable professionals. If you're really serious about taking personal responsibility for your body and health, which truly natural healing requires, the first thing you need to do is understand as much as you can about how this marvelous "machine" the human body (and that's an insult, really -- profuse apologies!) actually functions. Watching all the doctor and hospital "soap operas" won't "cut it" (sorry!). What you need is a good anatomy and physiology textbook. And some quiet time. Which won't likely come tap you on the shoulder. Even searching for it may not help. If you're like most of us, you'll probably have to TRADE some OTHER time for it, but it will be one of the best "investments" you ever made. And prepare to be amazed beyond words -- unless you have a really fantastic vocabulary. Then, when you go looking for natural healing advice, whether in print or from a professional health care provider, you'll be better equipped to evaluate how or if it should be applied to your particular situation. Or whether someone is simply (sincerely or otherwise) "selling you a fantasy". LEARNING all this is the relatively easy part. APPLYING it with SOUND REASONING is where it gets tricky. Nearly all of us grow up in a very narrow culture. Our view of life and the world around us is shaped and often distorted by that upbringing. The common "western world" view for example, is that to be "intelligent" one must accept unquestioningly whatever is popularly considered "scientific" at the time. Nothing could be futher from the truth, of course. ANCIENT SUPERSTITION accepted unproven "scientific" beliefs as fact. So does "modern superstition", sad to say. (You can probably supply examples for this one.) To true science, no understanding of the physical universe is above question. Some obvious but often overlooked questions you should ask about health advice you receive from magazines, "junk mail" or the internet include: Is it selling a product or service? Is it a "sure cure"? -- or a "cure all"? Does it contain negative connotations toward all other therapies and methods? How proud of themselves and their supposed knowledge do the writers sound? It's great to share one's knowledge and experience, but not to consider it the "last word" or the "stone tablets from Sinai". Of course, all human nature seems to have a touch of pride, prejudice and greed which can sabotage the credibility of even the best advice; so, try not to be too paranoid about it -- or the "eternal skeptic". But try not to be gullible, either. (We all at some time tend to believe what we WISH were true - - OR ARE AFRAID TO QUESTION). Try instead to be not only knowledgeable but sensible. (There IS a difference.) In everything strive for balance -- the key to health and life itself. ************* PLEASE NOTE -- This editor does not claim to "have all the answers" ( or even ONE answer in it's entirety ). The questions and conceptual implications in this and the following sections are raised NOT to promote some off-the-wall "pet theory" or to start some radical new teaching and "draw a following", but to encourage unbiased and progressive thinking -- AND to demonstrate that ANY MONOPOLY OF HEALTH CARE by any ONE HEALING PROFESSION or "SCHOOL OF THOUGHT" constitutes a HUGE DISservice to humanity and a subtle form of totalitarian despotism. -- THIS is the health care that needs reform!  --------------------------------------------- "When the evidence is tentative, we should not be embarrassed to call on common sense for guidance." - science writer John Horgan --------------------------------------------- Part 9 -- How Does It Work? -- Unconventional Concepts of Illness & Health -- You May or May Not Have Considered All humans, including scientists, are inclined to jump to conclusions; even though we know digging for facts is more productive "exercise". Unintimidated thinking might suggest that a number of widespread theories that have become ACCEPTED as fact may have originated by the FIRST method. For example: Micro-organisms have been demonstrated to exist, to NEARLY always be present in certain diseased conditions and even somehow to be involved in the "spreading" of the "disease". So it's generally ASSUMED they CAUSE the "disease". SOUNDS logical enough -- on the surface. But when we notice vultures, maggots or other scavengers nearly always present at dead carcasses do we assume they CAUSED the dead carcass? And will killing or eliminating the scavengers prevent or "cure" the condition? My father, a non-medical health care professional for many years, used to ask: "Now, the first person who ever had this disease -- who did they catch it from?" The human body is often compared to a machine -- and probably IS the supreme mechanical-and-more marvel on the planet. But it's also a "structure" (like a bridge or a building). Like the body, both machines and structures require maintenance; but, unlike the body nothing man-made repairs and maintains itself. That, to me, is one of the body's greatest marvels. And interestingly, it's internal maintenance functions very closely resemble those of a building -- like a very large industrial office complex, for example. While some maintenance goes on around the clock, such as patrolling lobbies and corridors for trash and spills as a matter of safety as well as appearance; the serious maintenance starts after the place closes for the day. Not just trash pickup, cleaning, polishing and restoration of vulnerable materials like floor finish. If it's a very large (or very old) complex, there will nearly always be some rooms in the process of being completely "gutted", restored, rebuilt or remodeled. While this latter process greatly extends the usefulness and structural soundness of the building, it produces a great deal of debris besides the trash the janitorial crew carries out every night from the day's normal course of doing business. Much like the the body's metabolism and it's replacement and disposal of worn-out cells in addition to the waste byproducts from digesting, assimilating and producing energy from the food we eat. Now, what do you think would become of all this building maintenance in the event of a general sanitation strike? Probably business as usual for a few days until the normal pick-up area outside the back door gets full. Then trash starts to accumulate INSIDE the back door, then along the back corridor, finally in ALL the corridors (the "arteries" of all the building's activity); until everyone is stepping over and around it. Production slows down during the day. (Ever get that sluggish feeling?) Maintenance and repair slow down at night. (You notice when wounds heal slowly, but internal breakdown may remain invisible for years.) Finally, it becomes almost impossible to accomplish ANYTHING. 9b If the day crew and the maintenance crews are under enough deadline pressure to "produce", and repeated attempts to resolve the waste problem are unsuccessful long enough, somebody will eventually give up in total frustration and start throwing it out the windows. (Ever have boils, pimples, abscesses or a similar discharge from sinuses or bronchial tubes? The body HAS to get rid of its debris SOME WAY in order to function and stay alive.) Here's another maintenance aspect to consider: If the building's trash and other debris stays piled up in the corridors and outside holding areas long enough, it's almost certain to become infested with vermin, from roaches to rats to who knows what else. Just as accumulations of waste material anywhere in the human body will almost always contain "undesirable" micro-organisms. Now, did the VERMIN in the building CAUSE the filthy CONDITION to develop, or did the filth draw the vermin? And why should we expect this "cause and effect" relationship to reverse in our bodies? Of course, life is a "miracle". But nothing "mystical" goes on inside the living organism. The same laws of physics (and logic) apply there as in the "outside world". There's no biological "black magic". Just because certain micro-organisms detect in us (while we're still alive no less) the kind of dead and decaying organic material they were designed to recycle (and -- eager to go to work -- produce results we were not desinged to live with as they clean up the mess) does not make them our "natural enemies"; but MAY explain the effectiveness of quarantine -- we confuse the microscopic recycling team unless we stay far away enough (or healthy enough) so they don't "see" us as carrion -- and as their next work assignment. My father used to insist that AT LEAST 90-95% of all our ills in the "Western World" come about PRIMARILY from two sources. Failure to put INTO our bodies the proper building materials; and the body's failure to properly ELIMINATE it's waste materials. Have you ever noticed how "natural science" often marvels at the "order" and "wisdom" in "nature", while so-called "civilization" seems obsessed with remodeling it as if a blunder, controlling it as if demented, even conquering it as if an enemy? Similarly, acceptance of the widely held ASSUMPTION mentioned at the beginning of this part requires belief either that an "all-wise and loving creator" DESIGNED certain micro-organisms to make us sick and shorten our life, OR that life IS merely an accidental eternal struggle for "survival of the fittest". Neither view accounts for all the observable evidence. Scientific researchers tell us the soil is teeming with numerous varieties of micro-organisms that no larger plant life could survive without. Others find in our intestines a similar array of bacteria without which we could not digest our food to continue living. In spite of abundant speculation to the contrary, the most carefully observed evidence indicates that all life is designed to support other life in some way. So, if any living thing APPEARS to be an enemy, something is out of balance, out of place, or misunderstood. And if we see "natural healing" only as a safer, less toxic way of dealing with "pathogens", we're missing the point. Truly natural healing is not just a therapy; it's a way of life -- a distinct CONCEPT of life, in fact.  --------------------------------------------- When you stop learning, you stop living -- and begin merely existing. --------------------------------------------- Part 10 -- How You Can Learn More Continue to examine ALL "scientific" observations, conclusions and theories IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER, and you'll see how little we know for sure. In contrast to the changeable, often-contradictory, sometimes-near-whimsical theories of humans, you'll find a remarkably stable, dependable kind of "wisdom" in the natural world. ( Some credit "Mother Nature" -- Whatever became of "Father Nature"? ) I've known precious few doctors (Medical OR Non-Medical) to truly treasure that "wisdom". It seems those all grew up on the farm and understood how life works in the real world, not just in the laboratory. ( and were often labeled "quacks" by "technological medicine") If you desire truly natural healing, then, you need to read your anatomy-physiology textbook from the perspective of life as a CO- OPERATIVE effort, not a COMPETITIVE one; even if it WAS written from the second perspective, as most are. ( A quick scan of the parts on the lymphatic system and the surely-misnamed immune system will tell.) But keep reading, observing, thinking and reasoning -- "outside the box". Take nothing for granted; make no assumptions; question the "unquestionable". Always remember that truth, like life, is interdependent. All the pieces or elements must fit together and work together, or nothing fits and works. Even when we don't "have all the pieces", we can be sure truths will never contradict other truths nor that rare UNcommon quality we so glibly refer to as "common sense". ********** Further-Reading Recommendations ********** ***** "On Disease" - essay by Dr. Lewis Thomas [1913-1993] (former Dean of Yale Medical School and former President of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center) in the collection "The Medusa and the Snail" - ISBN: 0-670-46568-2 Gray's Anatomy -- the original almost-universal standard for virtually all health professionals. ( Probably not for beginners -- see next ) **** Human Anatomy and Physiology by Elaine Nicpon Marieb. Written for first semester nursing students. Around 1200 pgs. Almost pure A&P with minimum medical theory & simple, clear explanations. (8th edition 2010; ISBN-10: 0805395911; ISBN-13: 978-0805395914) (Earlier editions will cost less if you can find them, and be entirely sufficient for beginning home use.) ***** Own Your Own Body by Stan Malstrom, @ 400pgs. Entry-level A&P w/natural living/healing info. Paperback, 1984 Keats Publishing, Inc. ISBN: 0879832150 ISBN-13: 9780879832155 Hardcover, 1992 Woodland Publishing, Inc. ISBN: 0913923230 ISBN-13: 9780913923238 **** New Choices in Natural Healing - Rodale Press - No A&P, but describes most alternative healing professions & concepts; + self- help remedies. (Exercise your discernment, values & priorities here) ISBN 0-87596-364-1 (paperback) 0-87596-257-2 (hardback)