EXCELLENT article by Dr. Ali

AN UNDERSTANDING OF ENERGETIC-MOLECULAR MEDICINE:
Nutritional Medicine, Environmental Medicine, Medicine of Self-Regulation, and Medicine of Fitness

by Majid Ali, M.D.

EM medicine is founded on events that occur in molecules (and cells and tissues) before they are injured and changed, and not on the study of how dead and decaying cells and tissues look under the microscope after they have been damaged by a disease.
EM medicine has four faces: nutritional medicine, environmental medicine, medicine of self-regulation, and medicine of fitness.
Rudolph Vichow, the father of modern pathology, published Cellular Pathology in 1858 and liberated us from the restrictive tenets of gross pathology of medieval and ancient times. Cellular pathology, of course, gives us windows to injured tissues and cells after the fact. Now, knowledge of energetic-molecular dynamics of health and disease allows us to move beyond where Virchow could take us with his microscope.
While acute illness is likely to remain a preserve of safe surgery and potent drugs, chronic illness is rapidly becoming a province of EM medicine. Drug medicine may well fall to nutritional and environmental medicines, and "limbic" fitness may soon prevail over current technology-oriented regimens. In fact, self-regulation may soon move from the field of mysticism to the domain of science.
Indeed, we are moving toward the moment when the physician becomes a tutor and the patient a pupil.
All diseases are caused by accelerated oxidant stress. This may strike many as improbable, perhaps even as a nonsensical simplification of complex issues, but I have sound reasons for proposing this unifying theory of disease causation. Spontaneity of Oxidation is the Root Cause of All Diseases. Increased oxidant stress on human biology is caused by factors in our internal and external environments. Chronic disease results from impairment in antioxidant defenses related to poor nutrition or excessive oxidant stress brought about by allergy, chemical sensitivity, environmental toxins, lifestyle stress and poor physical fitness. susceptibility to recurring viral, bacterial and fungal infections, and parasitic infestation of the bowel develops when an individual's antioxidant and, at later stages, immune defenses are damaged by one or more of the above elements. Drugs are not an acceptable answer to these problems. Antibiotics , while essential for life-threatening infections, seriously damage bowel ecosystems and impair human defenses in many different ways.
How is health defined in drug medicine? It isn't. The subject of what health is and what it may not be is scrupulously avoided in our medical schools, hospitals and physician offices. We glibly dismiss any reference t it by mumbling something unintelligible about physical, mental and emotional aspects.
But what are the physical attributes of health? How do we define mental health? What is emotional wholesomeness? I have attended tens of thousands of medical lectures since I entered King Edward Medical College, Lahore, Pakistan in 1958. I do not recall ever hearing anyone answer these questions with any sincerity of purpose. Why? I myself never once reflected on this question in the over 25 years that I worked as a disease doctor of drug medicine. I faced this problem only when my interest shifted from disease to health. I rendered my definition of what health is and what it isn't in the companion volume The Butterfly and Life Span Nutrition. Here, I briefly define health again.

Health is being spiritual without any need to analyze what spirituality might be.
Health is waking up in the morning with a deep sense of gratitude. Gratitude not for any accomplishment of the day before or for accumulations of yesteryears, but for simply being. An ENT surgeon from Greece recently attended my lecture at the meeting of the American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy and expressed frustration, "But this is utterly new to my Greek thought." If the concept of gratitude for simply being is foreign to us, we simply need to learn about it.
Health is waking up with a sense of energy, going through a day's work with that sense of energy and returning to bed at night with it.
Health is as much energy before meals as it is after it.
Health is the ability to treasure personal time in silence with family or friends or alone.
Health is two or three effortless, odorless bowel movements a day without mucus and cramps.
Health is living, dynamic and vigorous bowel, blood and cellular ecosystems.
Health is an intact and functioning gateway of life, cell membranes that mark the boundaries of life within the cell and that which exists outside it in the blood. Cell membrane separates internal order of a cell from external disorder. It is a living, breathing, spongy and porous sheet that regulates the two-way energetic-molecular traffic between cells and the soup of life that bathes them.
The last two elements of my definition of health may seem tedious to some readers. Here, I wish to make a crucial point:

The essence of energetic-molecular medicine is to seek a genuine understanding of the dynamics of cell membrane, and to reverse chronic disease and promote health with natural, non-drug therapies that revive injured bowel, blood and cellular ecosystems.

It is not uncommon for me to see drug doctors insult holistic physicians because they use "unscientific" methods. The truth is that it is a more scientific to base our restorative therapies for chronic disease on a genuine understanding of bowel, blood and cellular ecosystems than mere symptom suppression with drugs that blockade normal physiologic processes. Drug therapies for chronic disease as necessary as they might be for symptom suppression do not constitute restorative approaches.

WHAT HEALTH IS NOT

And now what health is not. Health is not mere absence of disease. Health has nothing to do with the frivolous notions of RDA and balanced diets of our nutrition experts. Health is not the euphoria of eating nor is it the denial of dieting. health is not preoccupation with recycling past miseries nor is it pre-cycling feared, future misery. Health is not living with regrets nor is it obsession with control in life.
I return to the question that I raised before submitting my definition of health: Why do disease doctors of drug medicine shun the subject of health? The answer is really quite simple: None of the issues of health I define above can be addressed with drugs.

ONE MISSION

A physician has but one mission:
to alleviate suffering by reversing disease and promoting health.

It is a sad comment on contemporary medicine in the U.S. that is neither committed to reversing disease nor to promoting health. Disease can be reversed only by addressing the initial energetic-molecular events that separate a state of health from a state of absence of health, the in between state of absence of health. Drugs can neither reverse disease nor promote health not withstanding their essential role in saving lives in acute, life-threatening conditions and in symptom suppression in chronic disease.
The twin goals of reversing disease and promoting health require nutritional, environmental, self-regulatory and fitness therapies.
Who is a better judge of whether a therapy works or not, a physician or a patient? Since antiquity, physicians have vigorously excluded the patient from judging whether the therapy used was effective or not. Even to date, the dogma of disease doctors of drug medicine flatly denies that the patient's subjective sense about the clinical efficacy, or lack of it, has any true role in research in drug therapies. In higher orbits of power where drug medicine sets its policies and procedures, patient's subjective evaluations are dismissed as soft data. the few physicians who do bring this subject up are regarded condescendingly not outright ridiculed.
In acute illness, indeed, the experienced patient is in a better position to be judge. The patient's judgment is often clouded by intense suffering, impaired intellectual function, and fear of death. But does that hold for chronic illness? The best of physicians can only bring to his patient only his knowledge and experience. One thing he can never do is become a patient. No amount of empathy, training, or encounters with suffering of other patients can allow the physician to feel the pain of his patient. No sensory perceptions no matter how sharply honed can allow a physician to know the suffering of his patient. We still have not invented any "pain-o-meter" that can precisely measure the degree of pain. How does an orthopedic surgeon quantify a patient's pain? He can graph out the muscle spasm with an electromyography equipment. But can he measure the magnitude of suffering inflicted by a persistent spasm of the neck muscles? How can a physician truly judge the level of fatigue of his patient as he leaves his bed? Or his sense of dismay as therapies fail, and promises do not hold up?
On a more mundane level, how can a physician judge better than the patient what dose of an herb gives him better sleep? Or what frequency of allergy injections give him the best relief? Or how often he needs extra support of oral or injectable nutrients to prevent the relapse of chronic fatigue?
In chronic illness, the patient is in a far better position to assess the outcome of a given therapy than the physician. Smart doctors sharp with their statistics may have trouble with this viewpoint; wise physicians will not.
As the physician and the patient become more enlightened, the clinical outcome evaluated by the patient will displace the frivolous models of double-blin, cross-over drug research that infatuate disease doctors at present.

TWO CORE PROBLEMS OF MEDICINE

There are two core problems of medicine today:

First, we try to solve 21st-century environmental and nutritional problems with 19th-century ideas of diseases and drugs.

Second, we have raised generations of physicians who know much about disease but little, if anything, about health. Indeed, the contemporary medical journals are singularly silent on issues of what health is, and how it can be fostered. The prevailing dogma of drug medicine is utterly committed to keeping the sick incarcerated in the sickness mold.

The issue is not whether or not non-drug therapies work for chronic ecologic, immune and degenerative disorders. They work. Thousands of physicians have known that for decades. The challenge today is not to disprove their efficacy; rather, it is to improve the success rate of such natural therapies with continued innovations, and to document their efficacy with careful empirical observations.
Instead, the prevailing dogma of drug medicine is committed to eliminating all non-drug therapies in the United States. Postgraduate continuing education of American physicians is solidly controlled by drug companies. During the last 25 years of my work at Holy Name Hospital in Teaneck, New Jersey, I have attended more than a thousand formal lectures, mostly by visiting outside speakers (paid for by drug companies). Except for times when I was asked to substitute for a speaker who could not speak, and spoke about matters of health, nutrition and environment, I do not recall a single speaker who discussed non-drug therapies. (Why would any drug company spend its money teaching physicians how not to use drugs?)
My friend, Choua, calls the prevailing dogma of drug medicine N2D2 medicine, a medicine in which all concerns, all efforts and all thinking are directed to naming a disease and then searching for the right name of a drug. Choua uses the following equation to make this point:

N2D2 Medicine =Name of Disease X Name of Drug

The central problem with N2D2 medicine is obvious: Mere names of diseases do not give us any insights into the energetic-molecular events that cause the symptoms and create the physical signs by which we diagnose them. In fact, these disease names hide much from us. The concept of the drug of choice indoctrinates us to seek chemical solutions for symptom suppression. The sick pay, an exorbitant price for our infatuation with N2D2 medicine, that essentially down plays the importance of nutrition, environment, stress and fitness. Drug medicine forever keeps the patient focused on disease rather than directing him to health.

THE TYRANNY OF N2D2 MEDICINE

And that is not the only problem. Generation upon generation of physicians believe that the care of the sick without drugs or scalpels is quackery. They are prejudiced against nutritional and environmental therapies of which, by their admission, they know little or nothing about. The very small minority of physicians who recognize this dilemma and seek non-drug therapies are mercilessly persecuted by the drug doctors who sit on hospital medical and state licensing boards.

THREE SCIENCES

Science is the search for truth. Science is observation of physical phenomenon. Science is self-correcting.

At an elementary level, one can look at Science in three ways:

Science of observation

Science of empiricism

Science of controlled and reproducible experiments

SCIENCE OF SIMPLE OBSERVATION

The first science of simple observation is the purest of all sciences. It is the science of simple observation. It has no ulterior motive or hidden agenda except to state what has been observed. Each month my issues of Nature and Science carry articles written by physiologists, botanists, zoologists, biologists and paleontologists who describing their observations about the oxidative stress on various life forms, alive or long deceased. Sometimes their observations extend the known knowledge and at other times, they challenge percepts of old knowledge. When such observations do not fit into the established body of scientific knowledge, they are not rejected simply because any high priests of establishment declare them invalid. The crucial point is this: Their observations stand on their own merits.

SCIENCE OF EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION

The second science of empiricism requires that we accept that which works. Apples fell down from trees long before Newton ever conceived his ideas of gravitational pull. People empirically knew that apples fall down and not fly up when they are ripe. Newton questioned why apples fall down and not move sideways or fly up, and that simple question led him to propound his laws of gravity.
Folks in Pakistan have known for centuries that curries do not spoil so readily if they are prepared with tumeric. They accepted this as a valid empirical observation. Recent studies show that curcumin, the major yellow pigment in turmeric, is a powerful antioxidant and anti-inflammatory agent. So now we know how tumeric keeps curry dishes fresh for many hours.
The East India Company sent four ships to India in its first expedition in 1600. General Mames Lancaster provided lemon juice in his ship that remained free of scurvy whereas the other three ships were badly affected by this disorder. This empirical observation was made long before vitamin C was discovered.
The ancients knew some remedies worked. Practical men demonstrated astute powers of empirical observations long before the modern concepts of science were articulated. They recorded the effects of many effective remedies after careful, repeated empirical observations. The Chinese and Indian Ayurvedic herbal medicines evolved over centuries. To this day, many of their herbal therapies are used worldwide for billions of people. I use many of them every working day in my office and validate their science of empiricism.

SCIENCE OF CONTROLLED AND REPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENTS

Great Promise lies in what I call energetic-molecular (EM) medicine. EM medicine is based on a true understanding of the energetic-molecular events that separate a state of health from a state of disease.
The explosive growth in physical sciences that we have witnessed during the last 150 years has occurred largely due to controlled and reproducible experiments. An understanding of the laws of physics led to an understanding of energy and of properties of matter. Advances in analytical methods led to determination of chemical composition of natural substances, and that paved the way for synthetic chemistry. Knowledge of biology and chemistry expanded into enzymes and genes. The field of molecular biology, as its infancy only a couple of decades ago mushroomed into an al encompassing discipline.
The story on the side of science in medicine, however, is quite different. Science is vastly misunderstood in medicine.

TRAGEDY OF SCIENCE IN MEDICINE

Medicine is artful application of the knowledge of biology to he care of the sick.
Human biology, I wrote in intravenous Nutrient Protocols in Molecular Medicine, is an ever changing kaleidoscope of molecular mosaics. Health and disease, at molecular an electron transfer levels, can be defined as the states created by the impact upon an individual's genetic make-up of molecules in his internal and external environments. Health, in this light, can be seen as molecular dynamics that preserve the structural and functional integrity of cells, tissues and organs. Disease, by contrast, can be defined as molecular events that cause cellular tissue and injury.
In biology, I wrote in The Butterfly and Life Span Nutrition, if we change something in one way, we change everything in some way. Different biologic burdens affect different people differently. Diseases change the function and structure of different tissues differently. Therapies affect different people differently. This must be accepted as the core philosophy of medicine.
The tragedy of drug medicine in the U.S. is this: Only that knowledge of biology that serves the drug industry finds its way into our physician offices, clinics and hospitals. there is little, if any, support for that knowledge of biology that can help us preserve health without drugs. In medical schools, there is considerable emphasis on basic sciences, but, as we all know, young doctors abandon all interest in basic sciences as soon as they have access to prescription pads.
Science of medicine vehemently rejects the first two sciences: the science of observation and the science of empiricism. We physicians mindlessly prescribe drugs that we know are toxic and, in many cases, simply do not work. We vigorously call quackery all use of natural therapies that we know nothing about, and stubbornly refuse to allow their use even though they have proven to be effective and safe by centuries of observation and empirical validation.
The science of medicine defines science in medicine only as the knowledge of drugs that can be proven by its blessed double-blind, cross-over model of drug research. It clings to this limited, and entirely unsatisfactory, view of science even as it sees every day the havoc wreaked by its drugs, after they were proven to be safe and effective by its double-blin, cross-over drug studies. I return to this tragedy of science in drug medicine in the chapter Science Has Not Failed Medicine, Medicine Has Failed Science.

FOUR PREDICTIONS

I am an optimist. I believe all this will change. Four predictions, it seems to me, can be safely made about the future of medicine for the enlightened:

First,

ecologic, immune, degenerative and stress-related disorders will be the dominant chronic disorders of the 21st century.

Second,

these disorders will force the disease doctors of drug medicine to learn and use non-drug therapies for chronic immune and degenerative disorders. Patients as well as physicians will clearly see that problems caused by chemicals cannot be solved with yet more chemicals (drugs).

Third,

the emerging energetic-molecular medicine will become a "participatory" medicine, a medicine in which the patient will actively guide the physician in energetic molecular restorative work rather than simply accepting symptom-suppressing drugs.

Fourth,

self-regulation, and the hope and spirituality that always spring from it, will become an essential part of the mainstream management philosophy for all chronic disorders.

I do not believe that everyone in medicine will readily see or agree with my reasons for making these predictions. Some people will always be content with sheer symptom suppression in disease. There will always be doctors willing to provide them with the necessary prescriptions.
These four predictions do not arise from some far-fetched notions of utopia. Rather, these conclusions seem inescapable to me as I reflect on the growing pandemic of hyperactivity and attention deficit disorders in children; chronic, disabling fatigue among previously active young adults; hormonal dysfunctions among young women; mood, memory and mentation disorders caused by multiple drug therapies among the elderly; and an ever widening spectrum of eco-disorders among people of all ages. No miracles of synthetic chemistry can reverse these problems. A growing number of people are becoming enlightened about these core health issues.

Five Medicines

Medicine began as a sideline of the men of spirits of antiquity. It slowly changed into medicine of gross organs, a profession in which therapies were used to approach problems of health as seen with examination of decaying and dead tissues. In the 18th century, the invention of the microscope ushered in the third medicine of histopathology, the microscope now defined diseases. The microscope also evaluated the efficacy of therapies used to treat those diseases.
Advances in synthetic chemistry brought forth the fourth medicine of chemistry, a medicine of enzymes, receptors, mediators, cell membrane channels and genes. The medicine of chemistry saves many lives. It is clearly at its best when it cares for those near death, the tail-end medicine as I call it. It also endlessly prolongs the process of dying for many. This fourth medicine fares poorly when it comes to preserving health and preventing disease, the front-end medicine in my order of things.
We now look at the emerging possibility of the fifth energetic-molecular (EM) medicine, a medicine based on physics of health rather than on chemistry of disease. Medicine based on physics of health is the true preventive medicine, focusing on the initial energetic molecular events that separate a state of health from a state of absence of health. This book is about this fifth medicine.

SIX ASSUMPTIONS

The concept of RDA is not a valid concept. Indeed, I have often wondered how could this frivolous idea have lasted for so long. It makes six dangerous assumptions:

First,

it assumes that nutrients are of clinical value only for prevention of a few deficiency diseases. This assumption is largely based on statistics obtained with animal experiments. How can the prevention of deficiency states in rats be equated with optimal metabolic requirements for health preservation for humans?

Second,

it assumes that statistics obtained with animal experiments conducted for brief periods of a few months or a few years can be valid for human beings for the whole life span. How can rats fed this or that nutrient for weeks or months from the basis for recommendations for humans for decades?

Third,

it assumes that statistics obtained with studies employing processed and unnatural food items can yield valid guidelines for good health. The natural order of things requires us to eat what grows where we live, and what land provides at that time. How can rats fed highly unnatural and purified foods be accepted as suitable models for humans?

Fourth,

it assumes that statistics obtained with studies conducted under highly controlled environment can produce data that are relevant to people living under highly polluted and toxic conditions. How can rats in sanitized laboratory environment be deemed appropriate surrogates for humans living in totally different ecosystems?

Fifth,

it assumes that human tissues are immune to the increasing oxidative stresses that wreak havoc on our land and marine ecosystems. Every month medical journals publish papers linking degenerative diseases with functional micronutrient deficiencies, and every month they report protective effects of such nutrients. Yet, the practitioners of drug medicine ignore all that evidence and stubbornly cling to their drug model of disease.

Sixth,

it assumes that statistics about nutrient deficiency states can be blindly applied to issues of health and human life span. How can rat statistics be relevant to humans?

This last assumption of RDA that statistics alone can separate truth from falsehood in medicine clearly is the most pernicious. Medicine is artful application of knowledge of biology to he care of the sick. We have a limited understanding of he healing response in man. There are simply too many variables in the healing phenomena, and medical statistics are of very little relevance to an individual patient.
The drug medicine compounds the error when it insists on carrying the silly assumptions of RDA into long-term use of drugs for chronic disease. Here, drug use statistics play havoc with the reality. Ironically, drug medicine goes to all lengths to mask, or outright deny, statistics about drug toxicity as it exaggerates the statistics about its long term efficacy.
Since I entered medical school in 1958, I have heard great pronouncements about the miracles of synthetic drugs. As a medical student and later as a young physicians, I received them with a certain pride. After all, those were the achievements of my profession. We had good reasons to celebrate our successes in treating acute illnesses. But the caring for the chronically sick is an altogether different matter. Years have sobered me. I include some excerpts for comic relief.

CURING DISEASE WITH SNIPPETS OF DNA

Someday, says Anderson, physicians will simply treat patients by injecting snippets of DNA and send them home cured.

Time Magazine, January 17, 1994, page 48

Let's see what the record shows.
We do not have a single drug that reverses degenerative disease. Drugs, as I write earlier, are agents of blockade of natural physiologic processes. They are not substances that health is made up of. (EDTA is one of the few exceptions that can reverse coronary artery disease, but drug medicine is vehemently opposed to its use). Nutrients facilitate physiologic processes, but their use in clinical medicine, as we all know sadly, is considered as quackery.
There have been abounding advances in surgery during my life time. However, surgical removal of diseased organs, as life-saving as it may be, clearly does not reverse any degenerative disorder. Surgical intervention by itself never promotes the essential regenerative processes that maintain health. There have been great advances in synthetic chemistry. Antibiotics are designer killer molecules that, as life-saving as they may be at times, do not reverse any degenerative diseases. Antiinflammatory agents, as valuable as they may be for symptom suppression, can never facilitate the healing response. How can they? Inflammation is the essential phenomenon that sets the state for repair response. Thus, the drugs that suppresses inflammation cannot promote the healing response. Steroids suppress the immune and healing responses.

HOPE IN THE WAR AGAINST CANCER

It begins as a single cell and grows into a merciless disease that claims more than half a million Americans a year. But scientists are steadily unlocking its mysteries, and the fight against it may now have reached a turning point. New discoveries promise better therapies and hope in the war against cancer.
Time Magazine, April 25, 1994

Time sees much hope in the grand proclamations of the cancer industry in the United States. I don't. Such assumptions of drug medicine forever amuse me. Let's see if the New England Journal of Medicine shares the hopes of Time magazine.

WE ARE LOSING WAR AGAINST CANCER

We assessed the overall progress against cancer during the years 1950 to 1982. In the United States, these years were associated with increases in the number of deaths from cancer, in the crude cancer-related mortality rate, in the age adjusted mortality rate, and in both the crude and the age-adjusted incidence rates...we are losing the war against cancer...A shift in research emphasis, from research on treatment to research on prevention, seems necessary if substantial progress against cancer is to be forthcoming.

New England Journal of Medicine 314:1226; 1986

The Journal is right on target. The war on cancer will not be won if we commit all our resources to destroying our antioxidant and immune defenses with more and more toxic chemotherapy drugs.
Cancer is reversible, at least in its early stages. But if we were to seriously pursue this, we will face a serious problem: the most powerful of all RDA assumptions, the notion of irreversibility. Our entire cancer industry is built on the assumption that cancer is irreversible. Much too much money is riding on this notion for it to be allowed to go down.

ATTRACTIVENESS OF GLOOM

Because life expectancy is constantly going up, and we may well cure cancer and heart disease in the near future, doesn't all else matter little if we are increasingly healthy?
Science 255:265; 1992

Science is out to dispel gloom. It entitled the editorial from which the above excerpt is drawn Attractiveness of Gloom. It doesn't much reason for gloom on the present scene. It has infinite faith in its capacity for solving all mankind's problems by miracles of synthetic chemistry.

CURING HEART DISEASE! WOW!

How does science propose to cure heart disease? With coronary bypass surgery? With angioplasty? With drugs? On what basis does Science make its pronouncement? Does Science have any data that supports its conclusions? If so, why does it hide it from us?
The Science editorial, of course, addresses the issue in a humorous dialogue with one Mr. Know-it-all. Science has not failed medicine, I write earlier. Medicine has failed science. The problem of heart disease, indeed, can be addressed effectively.
Heart disease is a reversible. It is a correctable oxidative-metabolic disorder, and not a mere plumbing problem as our cardiac surgeons and "angioplasterers" insist. Science has given us molecules such as EDTA, vitamin C, taurine, glutathione, N-acetyl cysteine that can reverse coronary artery disease. But if we were to pursue this matter seriously, we will face a serious problem: the RDA assumptions, the notion of irreversibility.

DRUGS FOR MORAL JUDGMENT

Drugs to improve moral conduct! And why not? We use drugs to solve all other problems. Why not solve the problem of immorality in society with drugs? Why single out morality as a domain beyond drugs? Why not enforce morality on the recalcitrant with "morality-restoring" drugs? A preposterous idea? Not really. At least Time magazine doesn't think there is anything wrong with it. Consider the following:

If moral judgment can be broken, surely the next step is to fix it. 'If the abnormality is in a discrete part of the brain that uses a specific neurotransmitter, we can develop a drug treatment,' suggests Dr. Snyder.
Time Magazine, July 11, 1994

Long live synthetic chemistry!

Long live our drug!

SEVEN INSIGHTS

During the last several years of my research and clinical work, one or more events gave me some essential insights into the health-disease dynamics for me. Seven such insights have dominated my thinking and clinical management of my patients. Each of these insight challenges a prevailing viewpoint on the pathologic basis of disease and the best ways of managing the clinical disorders they caused. These insights have also influenced my thinking in areas that at first glance appear unrelated to the disease in question. I now base all my EM medicine therapies on these seven issues, especially with regard to immune, metabolic and degenerative disorders. A discussion of each of the seven insights listed below follows.

1. Absence of disease is not always presence of health.

2. Spontaneity of oxidation in nature is the essential nature of the aging process in man and is the root cause of all diseases.

3. Healing is a natural state of energy in tissue.

4. Genes legislate life; the environment interprets the laws set forth by genes.

5. The bowel and the blood are open ecosystems.

6. Mind-over-body healing does not work; healing is not an intellectual function. Energy-over-mind healing works.

7. For chronic diseases, EM medicine will eventually displace the prevailing drug medicine as the proper approach to caring for the sick.

These seven insights were gifts to me from people who asked me to care for them in times of illness. Some evolved slowly after spending long hours listening to my patients describe their suffering and peering at injured tissues through my microscope in search of some answers. Still others hit me like lightening. I have vigorously tested each of them in various clinical settings. All my ways of caring for the sick are based on them. These illuminations have given rise to the different EM medicine that I describe in this and companion volumes.

Many of the precepts of EM medicine have been considered and tested by some of my colleagues in nutritional and environmental medicines. I hope the clinical therapies that arise from these insights, and the scientific principles on which they rest, will be considered by others, and validated, modified or refuted, in the best tradition of science.

Tweet