US/FDA Extends Approval Nonsense to Homeopathic Medicines

On November 15th, the US/FDA announced a new policy for homeopathic drugs. You can read the press release here if you like.  They US/FDA has announced that  for homeopathic medicines,”Efficacy and Safety Claims Are Held to Same Standard as Other OTC Drug Claims” Is this good news?

It might be good news, if the  efficacy and safety claim standards for other OTC drugs were useful.  It might be good news, if the standard efficacy and safety claim standards for other OTC drugs made sense.

Claims to NOT CURE – Approved

Let’s be clear.  Most drugs approved by the US/FDA claim (by omission) to NOT CURE any disease. Most medicines do not cure, and make no claim to cure any disease.  Most prescription medicines, most OTC medicines, and yes, most homeopathic medicines make no claim to cure any disease.

Maybe you’re thinking “That’s nonsense, it can’t be true!”.  Take this test. Walk over to your medicine cabinet.  Take out each of the drugs and check the labels for the word ‘cure’.  If the drug claimed to cure, the cure was approved by the US/FDA, and it appears on the label.  You didn’t find any cures?  Check your grandmother’s medicine cabinet, she has more drugs, maybe even lots of old empty and expired bottles.  Look for the word cure.  Hmmm…. Still can’t find any?  Maybe you did find one in 100 bottles. It is possible – antibiotics sometimes claim to cure. Head over to your local pharmacy, your local drug-store. Find the section for OTC, Over The Counter medicines.  Check the boxes for the word cure.  Good luck.

Homeopathic Drugs that Don’t Cure – Approved

While you’re there, head over to the homeopathic section, if there is one. If not, head over to the local health store, to search for homeopathic medicines. To save time, you can check a few websites, like Ten Common Homeopathic Medicines – search for the word ‘cure’. It’s not there. Or The National Center for Homeopathy.  Their website has a keyword search.  A search for the word ‘cure’ produces “We’re sorry, but no items matched your search. Please try searching for another term.

Homeopathy, in theory operates on the theory of “like cures like”.  But if you take time to read the theory, it suggests that a medicine that “causes” your symptoms, will “cure” your symptoms, not your disease.  Homeopathy has no useful theory of illness or disease (neither does modern medicine).  Both treat signs and symptoms with no cure goal.

Most medicines approved by the US/FDA treat signs and symptoms of disease. Most medicinal claims, make no claim to cure any disease.

Nonsense Leads to Nonsense

So, according to the US/FDA announcement, they will now extend their nonsense approval, of drugs and treatments that make no claim to cure – to include another group of drugs and treatments that make no claim to cure.

Maybe that’s OK?  Actually no.  Suppose you have a curable illness.  In theory, every illness can be cured.  What happens when you take a medicine for the signs and symptoms, that does not cure?

The medicine wears off, and you need more medicines. You take more medicines for the signs and symptoms, and the illness gets worse. You need a stronger medicine. You get side effects from the medicines, and need a new medicine for the new signs and symptoms of the illness caused by the medicine.  In simple English:

You have a chronic disease!

Once you have a chronic disease – in current medical theory, you have a disease that cannot be cured.  It can be treated with medicines that don’t cure.  You have become a subscriber.  Welcome to the  LTDWYD club: Learn to die with your disease. 


Until we begin to take cures seriously, nonsense will persist.  The US/FDA will make prestigious announcements of nonsense decisions.

If we want to learn about cures, we need to study cures. If we want cures, we need to approve cures, and give cures special status.  But there are two problems.

Cure, Cures, Curing, and Cured are not defined

Many medical dictionaries including  Webster’s New World Medical Dictionary, Third Edition, The Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary, Ninth Edition, 2015, The Bantam Medical Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 2009, Barron’s Dictionary of Medical Terms, Sixth Edition, 2013, and Medical Terminology for Dummies, Second Edition do not contain definitions for cure. Seriously? Can that be true? Medical reference texts, including: Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, 11th Edition, Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, Lange’s Current Medical Diagnosis and Treatment, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5)  do not contain definitions for cure.

How can we hope to find cures, if cure is not defined?

Well.. there’s a problem.  The cure for most diseases is not a medicine. All of the diseases that can be cured, and proven to be cured by a recognized medical test, are caused by parasites.  They are cured when the parasites are addressed, or killed.

All diseases that are NOT caused by a parasite are incurable, by lack of a definition. They can’t be cured by approved medicines.  They can’t be cured by homeopathic medicines. They can’t be cured by any medicines, approved, unapproved, legal, illegal, natural or unnatural.

They can only be cured by health.

Officially, obesity can’t be cured.  There is no test for obesity cured.  It is not possible to cure obesity and prove it has been cured.  The cure for obesity is not a medicine. Obesity is cured with health.

What is the cure for scurvy? No medicine can cure scurvy. Scurvy is cured by a healthy diet.  Medical references offer ‘treatments’ for scurvy. They don’t use the word cure, because they recommend treatments that don’t cure. Officially, scurvy cannot be cured. Cured is not defined for scurvy.

Depression cannot be cured. It is not possible to cure depression, and prove that it has been cured.  The cure for depression is health, not a medicine.

Cancers cannot be cured.  It is not possible to prove that any cancer patient has been cured, and although many claim to have been cured, no-one counts ‘cancers cured’, because cured is not defined for cancer.  Note: Cure rate is statistical nonsense, supposedly measuring effects of treatments, with no evidence of cure other than “cure wait”.

We can make a list, a huge list of incurable diseases: hypertension, heart disease, dementia, MS, Alzheimer’s, Parkinsons, arthritis, Chron’s, Celiac disease, diabetes, and yes, even cancer. None of these diseases – and many more – cannot be cured, by definition, because cured is not defined.

So… Homeopathic medicines.  Welcome to the MTDC club, the club of “Medicines That Don’t Cure“. You’ll fit right in.  But take note, the entry fees are high. Maybe you can’t afford to compete?  It’s expensive to get approval for medicines that don’t cure.

“Every illness can be cured” – the Healthicine Creed

to your health, tracy
Founder: Heathicine

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What is the difference between Health and Illness?

Our medical systems do not study health and hardly study illness, preferring the concept of ‘disease’, which is controlled by the medical profession.  As a result, there are no useful definitions of health or illness to be found in medical reference texts. There is also no simple definition of disease. We can only say that “a disease is what a doctor diagnoses“.  It is sometimes said that “A patient visits a doctor with an illness, and goes home with a disease.


Healthicine, the arts and sciences of health and healthiness, provides clear useful definitions for health and healthiness:

Health is a general term covering all aspects of healthinesses.

Ill is a general term covering all aspects of illnesses. An illness is a specific instance of ill.  An illness consists of a cause (the drop in healthiness or increase in unhealthiness) and the negative consequences of that cause.

A healthiness is a specific instance of health. We can compare healthiness, not health, to illness.

This diagram illustrates the difference between healthiness and illness.Health is whole. An illness is a hole in health. A healthiness is a specific instance of health, a whole, consisting of healthinesses and unhealthinesses.

Illness appears when healthiness drops to the illness threshold. It is cured when healthiness rises again, above the illness threshold. However, when unhealthiness breaks through the illness threshold, it might fall much farther due to other consequences of the illness, as shown above.


To clearly understand these basic concepts of health and illness, we need first to clarify what we mean by ‘health’ in the study of healthicine. In English we often use the word ‘health’ to refer to illness, or medical care. Health Care is actually care for those who are ill, and would more accurately be called ‘Illness Care’.  Health Insurance insures against high cost of medical illness.  It pays for medical expenses in case of illness.Health insurance is actually ‘medical insurance’ or ‘illness insurance’.

We also need to recognize that health is a general concept, while an illness is a specific case in a specific patient. Health, or healthy, is the opposite of ill, or sickly, general statements, not specific cases.

Instead of asking, “What is the difference between health and illness?” we need to ask:

What is the difference between a healthiness and an illness? 


What about disease?  Should we, be asking about the differences between healthiness and disease? No. There are many important differences between illness and a disease..

A disease is a very specific illness defined such that it can be diagnosed by a medical professional.  An illness must be present before a disease can be diagnosed.  Some illnesses cannot be diagnosed as diseases. Some are diagnosed incorrectly, or over diagnosed or under diagnosed. Many illnesses are not diseases, some diseases are not illnesses. The ICD10, International Classification of Diseases, Version 10, is a list of about 16,000 disease names used for statistical tracking of diseases, medical conditions, and mortality. However, the goal of the ICD10 is to be inclusive of anything that might be diagnosed worldwide.  As a result, it distinguishes poorly between signs and symptoms, disabilities and handicaps, diseases and more. In some cases even specific tests billed as a disease. Diseases, the concept of a disease, is very poorly defined in modern medicine, because the goal is not to create a scientific classification, but to be inclusive of every conventional doctor around the world – although not every medical practice.

Is illness less well defined than disease in current medical practice.  A patient can have an illness that has no name. However, an illness must be present before it can be diagnosed as a disease. An illness might arrive and be cured by natural activities, or by the health of the patient, before it is diagnosed. Many, perhaps most cases of illness, like the common cold, influenza, and food poisoning, are never diagnosed.

To understand the differences between healthiness and illness, we need a clear, simple definition of illness.

In healthicine: an illness is a single, measurable instance of ‘ill’.  

A simple illness, an illness element, is defined as:

The intersection of a single cause, or causal chain, and the resulting negative signs and symptoms:

  • every illness has a cause. Every cause is part of a chain of causes identified by asking ‘What is the cause of this cause?‘ when a cause is identified, or by digging deeper with questions like “what causes of illness are caused by this cause“.  In order to better understand the illness, and to better search for cures, we might also ask the question: “How is the patient benefiting from this cause?
  • every illness is a negative judgement with negative signs and symptoms, resulting from the cause.

An illness is a concept, not a thing.  It exists as a concept, when we link a cause with negative consequences.  The cause, in itself, is not the illness.  It is possible to have the cause without illness being present.  The cause does not always cause an illness. It is also possible to have the signs and symptoms of a specific illness, without having that illness.  There is overlap between signs and symptoms of many different illnesses. A specific illness only exists when a specific cause leads to negative signs and symptoms.

A simple illness is an illness element. A complex illnesses consist of combinations of simple illness elements, with a single cause.  A compound illness has multiple causal chains, consists of multiple illness elements.

In healthicine: a healthiness is a single, measurable instance of health.

Health is not a single thing, any more than illness is a single thing. An indication of healthiness requires two measurements that form a percentage to create an indicator of healthiness or of unhealthiness. Health is whole.  A healthiness is a measurable instance of health. The corresponding unhealthiness is the inverse of the measurement of healthiness. When we measure a healthiness, or an unhealthiness, we can calculate the inverse, because by definition, healthiness and unhealthiness add up to 100 percent. When healthiness grows, unhealthiness shrinks.  When unhealthiness grows, healthiness shrinks. Together, they make up the wholeness of health.

A simple measurement, like blood pressure cannot be a measurement of healthiness in itself.  It can be a useful measurement if it includes another measurement – for example, a health goal.  If a person’s blood pressure exactly matches their health goal, their blood pressure healthiness is 100 percent.  In most cases, their blood pressure healthiness does not exactly match the goal.  For example, if the patient’s blood pressure healthiness is within 90 percent, higher or lower, than their goal, their blood pressure healthiness is 90 percent, and their blood pressure unhealthiness is 10 percent. Of course a single measure of blood pressure is a very weak measure of healthiness, because blood pressure varies widely throughout the day, and as a result of exercise and restful actives.

At present, there are no standards for measuring healthiness, no standards for measuring unhealthiness.  We can develop standards, and improve them, but today, there are none. Healthinesses are many, rich, varied, compound and and complex. 

Hierarchy of Healthiness

We can see a big picture view of healthiness in a hierarchy of healthicine which includes both components and processes.

At the foundation, healthiness begins with genetics, and nutrition.  Genetics is the template,  the master plan for how our individual health will become us.

Nutritional healthiness is the health of our diet, with regards to nutrients necessary and responsible for health. Many nutrients affect our health positively, and many affect it negatively.  Even nutrients that affect health positively, can also affect health negatively when they are deficient or when excessive.  In addition, a nutrient that is valuable for one person, or one life entity, might be dangerous to another.

Cells arise when genetic elements successfully cooperate, with the aid of nutrients, to create living cellular entities. Cellular healthiness is health of the cells, including healthy bacteria. Our bodies are made of hundreds of different types of cells. Many of them are not ‘ours’, not human cells.

Tissues, and tissue healthiness emerges when cells cooperate.  Healthy tissues require cells to act in competition – to create healthier cells, and in cooperation to create healthy tissues – muscle tissue, connective tissues, etc.

Organs and limbs emerge when tissues cooperate.  Healthy limbs and organs require cells to compete as individuals, and to cooperate as tissues. They also require tissues that compete and cooperate in health as individuals and as members of the community – the organ or limb. Heart and lungs, arms and legs, are made up of cooperating communities of tissues.

Organs, tissues and cells cooperate to function as systems to create healthy circulatory systems, respiratory systems, digestive systems and more. Limbs cooperate and coordinate to create healthy, complex patterns of movement.

Thus, in cooperation, genetics, nutrients, cells, tissues, organs and systems comprise healthy bodies.  But that’s not sufficient to understand healthiness. We also need to study intentions, or spirits. Cooperation drives to the next level.  But at every level, intentions are the life spirits of individual entities.

Every cell has intentions, to live, to grow, to reproduce, to evolve, to eat and excrete.  As long as it acts on those intentions, it is alive.  When it ceases to act on those intentions, or when those intentions cease to be, it is dead. Intentions are the spirits of life.  When a cell loses its life spirits, it is dead.

Every tissue also has intentions of life.  They are different intentions, at a higher level than the intentions of a cell.  However, we can see that the tissues also want to live, to grow, and to evolve.  Each individual tissue type has other intentions – which, from our egotistic perspective, we call functions, as they serve our body. Connective tissues intend to hold parts of the body together.  Bone tissues provide structure. Muscle tissues facilitate coordinated movements. Nervous tissues sense internal and external environments and communicate what is sensed to other tissues and cells. When a tissue loses its intention, its life spirits, it might go astray, and become a cancerous tissue, or simply die. In many life entities, the loss of some tissues is not a problem.  Plants, trees, and even some animals can shed tissues, limbs and other body parts, and continue to grow and thrive.

Nervous tissues work with bodily organs and limbs to coordinate and enhance function and to ensure coordination with the whole body. As the body rises in sophistication nervous tissues form into nervous systems, a system that senses and communicates information about sound, information about sight, and information about smell. As nervous tissues cooperate, they raise the complexity and create brain modules, nervous tissues that can filter information, remember past events, even calculate and predict future events. These tissues have intentions to encourage cooperation throughout the entire body.  Those intentions become our most important intentions, or spirits of life.

When these brain components begin to cooperate, a higher level life entity develops, one that gradually – as complexity rises, gains conscious sense of self, even conscious of the mind itself.

The mind emerges from the cooperation of nervous tissue bundles, of brain components and sensory components. However, the mind is an active cooperation and competition not of physical components, but a cooperation and competition of memories and processes. Ideas and memories in the mind develop into life intentions and spirits of the individual. The mind rises above the status of a simple organ or organ system, even above the physical body.

The intentions of the mind, the spirits of the mind, are the spirits of life in higher level animals. If the spirit wants to live, and pushes the body to live, sometimes to unbelievable, or seemingly impossible actions.  Sometimes, the spirits decide there is no point in pushing, the entity loses the life spirit, and dies. When the highest level spirits, or intentions of a life entity fade and die, all lower layers of spirits also die quickly.

The primary layers of healthiness are genetics, nutrients, cells, tissues, limbs and organs, bodily systems, body, mind, and spirits. Each layer interacts with every other layer in the symphony of every individual life entity.  Our cells interact with our organs.  Their spirits interact with the spirits of tissues, organs, and every other layer.  The interaction of two different layers of healthiness is a secondary aspect of the study of healthiness.

Health exists in every individual component, and in every process and every community. Communities in lower layers become individual components in higher layers competing with other components, cooperating to raise the bar to the next level.

 You can learn more about the primary and secondary disciplines of health here.

There is one more layer in the hierarchy of healthicine.

Community is the final layer of the hierarchy.  At every layer, as noted, the path to the next layer is through cooperation, through community.  Communities of genetics and nutrients give rise to living cells.  Communities of living cells give rise to tissues.  Communities of tissues create limbs and organs.  Communities of organs create organ systems and the body. Communities of process build the the mind, and the spirits.

Many animals also live in communities, families.  When we look closely, even simple living plants live in communities, competing and cooperating.  Humans take this farther.  We create communities for many purposes – and the healthiness of these communities affects and is affected by all of the members.  Our healthiness does not stop at our bodies, it is affected by, and has effects upon our communities.

If we want to measure health, or healthiness, completely – we need to measure the health of each layer. Which brings us back to the question.  What is the difference between healthiness and illness?

Healthiness is the opposite of unhealthiness. Unhealthiness is the opposite of healthiness.

What is illness?  An illness is a hole in health. An illness is the absence of specific aspects of healthiness. As stated, every illness is negative.  Every illness is a judgement.  Every illness has a cause, and negative consequences.  Because of the complex hierarchy of healthiness, an illness in a single area might have negative consequences in many different areas of healthiness.


Simple, or elementary illnesses have specific causes.  Scurvy is caused by a deficiency of Vitamin C (in theory), a single cause, a single causal chain.

There are three basic types of elementary illnesses and they can be represented in a circle:

 – causal illnesses elements have an active cause. The cure is to address the cause.

 – injury illnesses elements consist of damage to body, mind, spirit, or community. The cause is gone. The cause is in the past.  Injury illnesses are cured by healing.

 – blockage illnesses elements block the natural healthy flows of life. The cause is gone, in the past. Blockage illnesses are cured by transformation, which often causes damage that must be healed.

Most illnesses are cured by health, by healthy activities. Each illness element requires an individual cure. A single cure cures a single illness element.

A complex illness consists of two or more elements of a simple illness element, with a single cause.  For example, a case of scurvy might be so severe that it not only causes signs and symptoms of scurvy, but also causes injuries. A complex illness requires two cures.  A complex scurvy illness requires a causal cure – to address the cause of the illness, and a healing cure, to heal the damage done by the illness.

Compound illnesses – are the result of multiple causes, with similar or overlapping signs and symptoms, often interacting over long periods of time. Many common compound illnesses can also exist as simple illnesses.  Depression can be a simple illness, with a single cause – or a compound illness consisting of several depression illness elements, each with individual causes or causal chains.

Our medical (health care) systems focus time, energy and money on prevention of disease, treatment of disease and (occasionally) curing disease. In current medical theory, most diseases cannot be cured. Little attention is paid to healthiness. Health insurance will not pay for you to improve your healthiness – if you have no disease.  If you have no disease, you cannot go to a doctor or a hospital and expect treatment.

Improving your healthiness is personal, it’s up to you.


to your health, tracy
Founder: Healthicine

Note: This post was first published in 2011 on the site Personal Health Freedom. It has been updated several times as the study of healthicine progresses and provides new insights.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on What is the difference between Health and Illness?

Which Supplements are Healthiest?

If you want to know which supplements are best, there are two independent researchers in the English language world. If you know of another, please tell me. Both publish their methodology, how they evaluate products, and update their methodology on a regular basis. They don’t reference or quote each other, because they are selling “information about multivitamins”. They are in competition.

There is no medical science of supplements, only a science of products. There is no medical science of healthiness, only of illness.

NutriSearch Corporation publishes The NutriSearch Comparative Guide to Nutritional Supplements. This is a Canadian organization – in Canada you might find the guide, or a previous edition, at your local library. I recommend scrolling down on their webpage and watching the video for more information. NutriSearch does NOT sell vitamins. They sell a book that lists evaluations of over 1000 products.

The Multivitamin Guide lists their top 100 on their website. Their top 11 products get a score of 8 of 10 or higher. You can fill out a quick survey on their website to get a recommendation from them. The Multivitamin Guide provides links to purchase multivitamins. I assume that’s their ‘income’. They have incentive to promote specific products, which they market. They have incentive to ignore products they do not market.

I believe NutriSearch does a better job of evaluation, and evaluates more products. NutriSearch evaluates products in 18 dimensions (in the edition I have) and updates the scores as new scientific research is published. They make money from their recommendations, not from sales. The price of the NutriSearch book is less than one month’s supply of the highest rated supplements.

Both agree on the score for some products, with minor variations. They use different scoring systems, NutriSearch scores from 1 to 5, on 11 dimensions, and MultiVitamin Guide scores from 1 to 10, on four dimensions.  But, you can multiply the Nutrisearch score by 2 you get a comparison MultiVitamin score. I believe score difference of one point on a scale of 1 to 10 is negligible – a difference of more than one point is more significant.

I don’t have the latest NutriSearch guide, I’ve ordered it to provide up to date comparisons.  However, I do have the Fourth Edition. Manufacturers are also constantly updating products, product names, and marketing information, in competition with each other.  I can provide a few comparisons of similar products. 

The products in green have scores within 1.2 of each other.  Products in orange significantly different ratings. MultiVitamin Guide reviews a single product for each manufacturer, so you might mistakenly purchase a different product, because they choose a different product in the same line by mistake.  MultiVitaminGuide reviews only supplement by Douglas Products, whereas the NutriSearch guide provides ratings for 26 different products from Douglas Products, with scores ranging from 1 to 10.  I chose only highest one for comparison with the MultiVitamin Guide selection.

Disclosure: I take one of the products on the green section, every day, at half the recommended amount.

The Science of Supplements

Most supplements, and all highly rated supplements contain far more than just vitamins. There is little ‘science’ of supplement products. Most scientific studies of specific vitamins and minerals are done in isolation. Supplements are designed to improve healthiness, when there is no diagnosable disease. But, there are no scientific journals of health, only of disease.

No medical journal will accept research about ‘health’. All require research into and reference to disease for publication consideration. No medical journal in existence today will consider for publication, any research from either of these companies (or any other) about healthiness of supplements.  They only accept research into diseases.

There is also no science supporting statements that supplements are bad for your health. There is scientific research demonstrating that individual vitamins are useful to fight illness, but this research is usually based on one specific vitamin at a time, not on combinations of vitamins, minerals and other plant nutrients. Multivitamins are complicated. Supplements are more complicated. Health is complex.

The majority of supplement research is done to measure effects of multivitamins on signs and symptoms of disease X. After all, that’s what the medical journals will publish. Pick a specific product, generally an inexpensive low end product, and run a scientific study against a specific disease – a disease considered to be ‘incurable’.  If the disease was considered to be curable, there would be no need for a supplement. This results in a research paper saying “multivitamins don’t help (signs and symptoms of) incurable disease X”. Note: Modern medicine views most diseases as incurable.

The press doesn’t bother to study research papers, they just print “multivitamins are worthless”.

You might think, that if we are actually interested in producing powerful health supplements, we would test the best products, and compare them to each other. But, there is no interest. Research efforts are simplistic studies of individual products, do not build on each other, and do not work towards any science of supplements nor of healthiness. The press makes them less useful, in an effort to create a story from something of little or no importance.

Which is Healthiest?

Imagine a scientific study that took 1000 healthy people and measured their healthiness. Then divided the group in half, and gave one-half the top rated supplement by the MultiVitamin Guide, and the other half the top supplement according to the NutriSearch score. Then, after three months, they measured the subjects healthiness again. That would be a worthwhile study. The value of supplements would have a useful answer, or at least a starting point.

Imagine a second step, studying the people in the study to determine which supplements were best for which people.

But, there’s a huge technical problem. We have exactly zero tools to measure healthiness. Our entire medical system measures illness and indicators of illness, but not healthiness. We can measure strength in many dimensions – but those are not measures of healthiness. Measuring healthiness is hard, and we’ve had no practice at all.

The only companies that study drugs in clinical studies are the companies that sell them. Drugs are patented, and other researchers are often legally prohibited from studying them. They are also often technically prohibited, because the drugs are not yet available for purchase.  This, frankly, is not science, it’s commerce, using unscientific research (dressed up in a tuxedo) to promote unscientific behavior. True scientists compete to share what they have accomplished.

Corporations do medical research for ‘products’, fund universities to study products, to get approval for products, to market products. Every medicine you can buy has a marketing team, often a bigger marketing team than most multivitamin corporations. There is, today, no such thing as medial research that is not product driven and product biased. Products make money. Products make money off of sick people. Healthy people? There’s no money in them.

The only companies that study high end supplements are the companies that sell them. Contrary to drugs, I suspect these companies would be very happy to be used in research studies measuring healthiness. But, there is no interest. There’s no money in studying someone else’s product unless you can produce a negative result. Pepsi beats coke, consistently, in Pepsi’s scientific research studies, by design.

Today, all medical research is biased, by design. Drug companies sponsor studies of supplements only to produce negative results. They don’t sell high quality supplements, they compete with them.

As a result, the medical establishment has nothing positive, not even anything official to say about supplements, or the work done by NutriSearch and MultiVitamin Guide. Doctors are free to give advice, and every doctor is on their own with regards to forming their opinions. Doctors within the ‘conventional medicine’ paradigm are discouraged from recommending supplements, although there is no evidence to support this position. Many doctors do not agree, but few speak out privately and fewer speak out publicly, except those actively involved in marketing specific products.

Doctors who believe supplements can provide benefits, cannot find unbiased research. There is no unbiased research, and no research at all that is supported by the medical establishment. Doctors can only find a product they believe in, make recommendations, and observe individual results.

Positive results from individual doctors are ‘anecdotal evidence’ and theoretically considered unacceptable as scientific data. This theory nonsense when we consider that every cure is an anecdote, not a clinical study, that every clinical study is actually a collection of anecdotes. In addition, the majority of clinical studies are not designed to study cures, and by design, cannot recognize cures when they occur.

Which are Supplements Safest?

Drugs are unnatural poisons, by design. A drug cannot be patented if it is ‘natural’.  Drugs act by fighting illness, and often act by fighting healthiness. Drugs usually ‘work’ by pushing health out of balance in specific dimensions, to fight the effects of illness – that push health out of balance in other directions. Drugs are sold by prescription, because they are dangerous. Drugs have side effects, and every drug lists side effects or possible adverse consequences of a standard dose, on the label or packaging – usually in very, very small print.  Drugs are dangerous.  We know this to be true.

Water is also dangerous.  You can drown in it.  If you drink too much, or too little, you might get sick or die.  But water is essential to healthiness. Clean, healthy water, in the right amounts – and living entities have wide tolerances for water consumption.

When we compare supplements to drugs, and expect similar risk measurements and levels, we’re thinking nonsense.  When a reporter, or a marketer, or a competitor, tries to argue that supplements are dangerous, they are creating nonsense.  Low value supplements are worth little, but you might choke on  the big pills. High quality supplements are safer than pizza, swimming pools, crossing the street, or driving in a car. Which supplements are safest?  Supplement your diet with fruits and vegetables.  Which are most dangerous?  Stop supplementing your diet with desserts.

Asking which supplements are safest, is like asking “which apples are safest?”. Yes apples can be dangerous in specific situations. They might be rotten. They might be covered in pesticides. But apples are eaten to improve healthiness, not illness.

Are high quality supplements safer than fruits and vegetables? People die every year from eating fruits and vegetables. But of course people eat lots of fruits and vegetables every day. Risk is not measured just in injuries or deaths.

Both NutriSearch and MultiVitamin Guide evaluate the production quality and safety of the products they review, but this information is of little value – even less if you choose a high value product.  Safety research that is essential in a “drug paradigm”, is of low value in a supplement evaluation.

Are Supplements Improving?

Do high value supplements improve as the years go by, due to healthy competition? Do they improve in value for your dollars? Because there is no science of healthiness, we have no way to measure the benefits and risks of any dietary supplement, except with reference to disease. We don’t know if highly rated products have improved, or not, or improved in some dimensions, and not in others. Lower quality products have little incentive to improve, because they are generally replaced by ‘new’ products next design cycle. Marketing of low quality products is primarily based on newness, or fashion, not on quality.

High quality products are constantly working, trying to improve their status against their competitors. But without any science of supplementation, we have no science, no knowledge.

But take note.  We don’t study the healthiness of potatoes, or apples, or eggs either.  You might see 5 different kinds of eggs for sale in your local supermarket.  Which one is healthier?  There is no science.

Supplement Bashing…

Supplement bashing and multivitamin bashing is commonplace. Many people are stuck in the paradigms of illness and disease, and thus ignorant of health. I call this ‘medical chauvinism’. Medical chauvinists advise that there is no such thing as a “good multivitamin”. This is simply propaganda, like saying “all trees are bad” or like saying there are no “good apples”, because apples don’t cure any disease. Duh….

Supplement bashing arguments are not supported by any definition of good, or bad, or health, except with reference to disease. There is no science that actually measures the goodness, or the badness, of supplements.

At the same time as supplements are presented as ‘bad’ or ‘worthless’ medical authorities and marketers include supplements in many foods to prevent disease or to enhance marketability. It’s a clear case of do what I say, not what I do..

Officially, according to the US/FDA, supplements must be labelled “the product is not intended to ‘diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease,’ because only a drug can legally make such a claim.” It’s simplistic nonsense. An apple a day cannot, according to the US/FDA prevent any disease ‘legally’. The suggestion that only a drug can claim to ‘diagnose’ any disease is ridiculous. Officially, only doctors can diagnose disease. But at the US/FDA, nonsense is the law.

Form your Own Opinions

How might we know what multivitamins are good? There is no science.  If you are not sick, your doctor is not qualified to make a recommendation. Who is qualified? No one but you.

You’re on your own – as it should be with regards to health, because there are no experts on health.

to your health, tracy
Founder: Healthicine

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Which Supplements are Healthiest?

The Rise of Medical Chauvinism

Medical Chauvinism: the belief in one single practice of medicine, excluding all others as alternatives of little value.

Chauvinism: “Excessive or prejudiced support for one’s own cause, group, or sex” (gender). Oxford English Dictionary. “undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged” Merriam-Webster.

Medical chauvinisms are on a steady rise. Chauvinism is often a combination of ignorance and marketing.  Ignorance has two sides – ignoring facts that are clearly worthy, and not understanding true realities in the situation. Both types of ignorance are often present in medical chauvinism. And then there are the marketers. Today, it seems medicine knows nothing about cures – and everything about marketing.  Ask your doctor if that might be good for you. Let’s look at a few examples of medical chauvinism:

Cure Chauvinsims:

The Perfection of Cures: Current medical theory has little belief in cures. The non-belief in cures is often supported by the suggestion that a cure must be perfect and permanent, or it’s not a cure – today’s medicine wants zipless cures.  This is simplistic nonsense, medical chauvinism. If we don’t consume a diet with healthy amounts of Vitamin C, we get scurvy.  If we change our diet, the scurvy can be cured.  But if the cause returns, we get a new case of scurvy.  The illness is cured when the cause is addressed.  A new illness occurs when a new cause arrives. Why does no medical treatment reference dare to use the word ‘cure’ with regards to scurvy. 

Cure Ignorance: Many cures are simply ignored. Cures are often forbidden. The words cure, cures, cured, curing, and incurable do not appear in many medical dictionaries, and are not defined in medical treatment references.  When we fail to recognize, or refuse to acknowledge cures, we fail due to medical chauvinism. There are no statistics for cures. No health (medical) insurance company will pay for a cure – they pay for treatments. It is not possible to prove a cure has been accomplished for any disease not caused by a parasite, because ‘cured’ is not medically, not scientifically defined for those diseases.

There is no cure for the common cold. Medical chauvinism. People get and cure colds every day. The common cold is cured by health, not by medicine. People who are healthier get fewer colds and their severity and duration is less. People who are less healthy get more colds, of higher severity and longer duration. There is no medicine that can cure the common cold, because no medicine improves healthiness. Medicines are designed to attack symptoms of disease, not improve healthiness.


Medicine Chauvinisms:

Conventional Medicine Chauvinism: The belief that only a medicine, only an medical treatment approved by the government can be used to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease. It’s nonsense. Many, perhaps most illnesses are cured by health, by healthicines, not by medicines.

US/FDA Guidelines: One of the most egregious examples of medical chauvinism comes from the US/FDA page on supplement labeling, which requires that manufacturers “must also state that the dietary supplement product is not intended to ‘diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease‘, because only a drug can legally make such a claim.” The statement that only a drug can claim to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, is medical chauvinism, made without any attempt to clearly define: supplement, diagnose, treat, cure, prevent, or drug. It’s nonsense, medical chauvinism, but it’s also the law.

Alternative Medicine Chauvinism: The term ‘alternative medicines’ is medical chauvinism, creating and supporting a belief that conventional medicines are not ‘alternatives’.  In truth, any medicine that does not cure is an alternative medicine.  And many illnesses can be cured by different medical alternatives. The phrase ‘alternative medicines’ is a marketing tool, not a scientific tool.  A clear example of medical chauvinism.

Most medicines, including most alternative medicines are designed and marketed to treat the signs and symptoms of an illness, with no attempt to cure.  Currently, the only medicines that can cure any disease are medicines that attack parasitic diseases.

The battle between medicines and alternative medicines comes down to a simple, nonsense question:

“Which medicine DOES NOT CURE better?”

Chronic Disease Chauvinism: 

Chronic Diseases are incurable: The belief that chronic diseases are mysterious evil incurable things is simply medical ignorance. Medical chauvinism.  There are two kinds of chronic diseases.

The first type of chronic disease is an illness with a chronic cause.  Any illness is a chronic illness, when the cause is chronic. This is no mystery. It is possible to get a chronic infection, if the patient has a chronic cause.  A patient can get scurvy because of a chronically deficient diet. No medicine can cure a chronic illness.  Providing a healthy diet for a a short time period cures an instance of the illness, but not the chronic illness.  The cure is not just to address the cause, but to also address the chronic nature of the cause. To claim, or suggest that this type of chronic illness is incurable, because no medicine can cure it, is medical ignorance, medical chauvinism.

The second type of chronic illness is a disability or a blockage. A disability cannot be cured.  However, many illnesses that are mistaken for disabilities – are actually blockage illnesses, illnesses caused by something that blocks healthiness. Blockage illnesses are cured by transformation.  The modern medicine is familiar with some blockage illnesses, because they are cured by surgery. Cataracts are a blockage illness, cured by surgery.  There are many different blockage illnesses, of the body, the mind, the spirit, even the community. They are chronic illnesses that are cured by transformation, in many cases, by transformations much less severe than surgery.  Type 1 Diabetes is generally believed to be a disability illness – although there is some dispute.  Type 2 Diabetes is believed, by many people to be a blockage illness, an illness caused by a blockage that can be transformed.

Placebo Chauvinisms:

The belief that any medicine, treatment, or benefit we cannot explain is due to a placebo.  In truth, a placebo is any treatment, medicine or benefit we cannot explain.  It’s not the same.

Placebos: The word placebo is vastly overused by medical chauvinists, who – in most cases – do not understand the basic definitions of placebos.  There are two distinct types of placebos:

  • Real Placebo: when the doctor prescribes a medical treatment that, in theory, will have no effect on the illness – in the belief that it will help the patient. When a real placebo works, both the patient and the doctor benefit. When it fails, there is no harm.
  • Fake Placebo (also known as Clinical Placebo): A clinical placebo is administered, not prescribed, to a patient with no intention to help the patient.  The intent of administering a clinical placebo is to test a drug.  If the patient is helped by the placebo, it disrupts the clinical study, and is ignored. When the placebo “works”, the patient receives no benefit. 

Medical chauvinists often dismiss treatments that work as ‘placebos’ when they are neither of the above. What they are trying to say is it was an “invalid treatment”, or “they don’t believe the treatment that produced the benefit”, that the benefit is a placebo effect. Medical chauvinism facilitates ignoring the benefit, ignoring the cause of the benefit, by adopting the ‘placebo excuse’.

Placebos, real placebos, cause real positive effects (not fake effects) – as documented by Oxford’s dictionary. Fake placebos are designed to cause no effect. The alternative health product you purchase a drugstore, or at a health food store, is not a placebo.

Placebo Effect: The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language defines placebo effect as “A beneficial effect produced by a placebo drug or treatment, which cannot be attributed to the properties of the placebo itself, and must therefore be due to the patient’s belief in that treatment.” The view that ONLY  the drug or treatment can produce a beneficial effect on an illness is simply nonsense.  The statements that “a beneficial effect produced by a placebo drug or treatment” followed by “cannot be attributed to the treatment” is contradiction of terms.  Either it was produced by the treatment, or it cannot be attributed to the treatment. The restraint that it “must therefore be due to….” is untested speculation, nothing more. Placebo effect is medical mysticism, medical chauvinism.

It is important to understand that there is no dispute about the benefit of a placebo effect.  Placebo effects are real, positive effects on the patient’s condition. If the effect is negative, it is called a nocebo effect. As with placebos, there are exactly two types of placebo effects.

  • A placebo effect occurs when something – not the treatment – caused a beneficial effect.  Something we don’t understand. As responsible researchers of science and medicine, we need to study and understand the cause, not simply dismiss all placebo effects as caused by “the patient’s belief in the treatment‘”.
  • A placebo effect occurs when the treatment actually caused the benefit, but we do not believe the treatment could cause the benefit.  eg. We don’t understand.

As long as we believe we understand, as long as we sweep the positive effects under the placebo effect rug, we will fail to understand, fail to learn, fail to make use of the real cause.  Every placebo effect is a real, positive effect.  Every real, positive effect has a real cause.

Prevention Chauvinisms: 

Prevention is better than cure.” – Desiderius Erasmus, 1456-1536. “An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of Cure“: Benjamin Franklin. Both of these statements are often used to support medical chauvinism, to support medical treatments that supposedly ‘prevent’ disease. There is an important message here, but taken to extreme, the message leads to nonsense, to medical chauvinism – especially when the preventative is a medicine itself.

A simple (nonsense) example – we can prevent pedestrian accidents by never crossing the road. But this preventative action is simply not justified, and is not “better than the cure”. When pedestrian accidents occur, we need to treat the patient, not advise them to stop crossing the road.

In truth, the best preventative is health. The best cures come from healthiness, not from medicines. When we prevent illness by improving the health of the patient.  When we attempt to prevent disease without improving the health of the patient, we can easily cause more harm than good.

Clinical Studies Chauvinisms:

Clinical Study Treatments: The belief that only treatments tested and proven in clinical studies can provide benefits. This belief ignores the simple fact that every treatment tested and proven in a clinical trial could have provided benefit – before it was tested and proven in a clinical trial. It also dismisses many treatments where there might be substantial benefit to the patient, but no benefit to a clinical trial. eg. A positive treatment with little or no potential to make profits. Note: Most clinical studies to not test cures, because cured is not defined and a cure cannot be documented if it occurs.

Clinical Study Chauvinism: The belief that treatments tested and validated in clinical trials are proof of positive benefits.  Clinical studies are marketing tools, designed and implemented with specific intent to produce a marketable product.

Vaccine Chauvinisms:

Vaccine Chauvinism: The belief that every vaccine, past, present, and future, and every vaccine ingredient, is perfection – and that no person, doctor, researcher, or scientist should dare to challenge those facts or attempt to exercise individual choices for themselves or their children.

Vaccination Chauvinism: The belief that the best way to prevent any disease is to vaccinate against it.  Health is the best preventative.  Health is the best cure.

Wakefielding: Wakefielding is the tendency of vaccine chauvinists to make ridiculous, nonsense exaggeration with regards to Alexander Wakefield’s beliefs, motivations, and actions. You can often spot this when it occurs on radio and television programs, because the host or guest makes a blanket statement and follows it with “ha ha”. In today’s political “medical chauvinistic” climate, it is impossible to criticize any aspect of vaccination, without being dismissed as a heretic.  Medical chauvinism.

Medical Chauvinism

This is the initial post about the concept of medical chauvinism.  I would love to read your input, and your observations of medical chauvinism to add to the list.

To your health, tracy
Founder: Healthicine

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Rise of Medical Chauvinism

Miracle Cures vs. Real Cures

We all labour against our own cure, for death is the cure for all diseases.” Thomas Browne

Cures are miracles.  Anyone who can cure, is eligible for sainthood. Such is the mystique of cures and curing. But, anyone who claims to cure any disease or medical condition is banished, treated more like the devil, or a ‘quack’ who is promoting ‘pseudo-science’. No self-respecting doctor would claim to cure.  Training for nurses and other medical workers often advises “never use the word ‘cure“. Cures are considered impossible, or at least very unlikely, suspicious even when they occur.

In truth, cures are commonplace. Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Miracle Cures vs. Real Cures