My Philosophy for Natural Health
My Philosophy for Natural Health
How The Five Pillars of a Dynamic Health Lifestyle Plan was born:
During my podcast, Awaken the Giant Within, I shared a story about my journey in connecting different scientific fields. I discussed my conversation with Jack Andranka, a young genius who created a pancreatic cancer sensor at the age of 16. I also mentioned a generous offer I received from a leading scientist (whose name I won’t disclose) to coauthor research on a pain biosensor. The main issue I addressed was the fact that science is not human and you can’t replace one species with another and expect the same results.
The Parable of The Marine Biologists exemplifies this problem. Biologists do not study sharks and create drugs for dolphins, and veterinarians don’t formulate diets for cats and give them to dogs. The reason is species differentiation, a well-known scientific phenomenon that states that cells, proteins, and biomolecules react differently depending on their species of origin. This phenomenon has driven scientists crazy.
Interestingly, just recently, I had the pleasure of meeting a married couple, both with PhDs. The husband specializes in lung pathology with rats, while I couldn’t quite understand what his wife’s field was, as it was completely different. They listened to my podcast episode about rat science and animal research and loved it. Although I won’t reveal their identities, I want to express my admiration and gratitude for their work. Their research is still crucial, as we cannot ethically conduct human research in the exact same manner as with rats.
I strongly agree with the fact that we should not continue with the same methodology and defend an outdated paradigm. Numerous terabytes of data prove that replacing one animal with another and considering it equivalent to humans is flawed and will never work. Animal scientists are valuable because they serve as a starting point for research. However, substituting animals for humans when developing drugs is hazardous. I don’t have the ultimate answer, but if we don’t engage in open discussions based on unbiased facts, how will the next brilliant mind like Jack Andranka emerge to redefine and update scientific theories and methodologies?
Regarding coauthoring research on a pain biosensor, the Harvard PhD and I ultimately didn’t collaborate because, as she agreed, it would have worked on a rat due to its physiology. However, it wouldn’t have yielded the same results with a guinea pig, a rabbit, or even a mouse. Surprisingly, even wild rats, different from their laboratory counterparts, display distinct characteristics, as identified when comparing research results. Therefore, lab-bred rats should be seen as a separate species from wild rats, as scientists themselves acknowledge.
Considering this, how can we accurately predict the effects of a certain approach on humans? When the researcher I spoke with paused and confessed that they have no idea, emphasizing the complexity of the matter, I realized that we were on the cusp of creating a pain biosensor solely for lab-bred rats.
Personally, I decided to stick with my day job as a chiropractor. If scientists’ only fallback is that they can’t conduct human research, it reveals a fundamental flaw in the entire paradigm. The methodology is corrupt, and the theories are incorrect. As a clinical scientist, the right approach should involve acknowledging the results, going back to the drawing board, reformulating hypotheses, and revising the outdated and flawed implementation of the scientific method. Continuing with the same expectations while disregarding the glaring issues will never yield success.
The concern extends beyond the dangerous side effects of drugs. It involves the well-being of the next generation of scientists who might discover a superior methodology. Our current scientific paradigm, developed in the 1920s before the discovery of DNA, requires a change. It is as if scientists keep banging their heads against a concrete wall, hoping they will eventually break through. But that wall is impenetrable, and their persistence is endangering themselves. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.
I may not have a PhD, but I am someone who can clearly see that the wall they’re hitting is made of 20 tons of concrete, not drywall. I don’t need advanced degrees to recognize that. In fact, having a PhD might hinder one’s ability to see the big picture, as it often focuses on minor details.
My hope is that more people, including scientists, hear my message. Perhaps a genius will emerge and develop better methods, leading to a new paradigm. Nanotechnology, for instance, holds promise and, if used appropriately, might enable safe human research with minimal harm. I believe that this new paradigm is just around the corner.
For more information check out my shows: