Volume 1 - Integrative Medicine - NOOK
The faith in the fixedness in human biology has created a pernicious belief system among
the 'academic thought leaders' of the pharmacologic medicine: that only the 'facts' of medicine
established by blinded and controlled trials of individual drugs can be relied upon, and that the
'opinions' of physicians who toil for decades in the clinical trenches of medicine are of no value,
and hence must be dismissed. It continues to amaze me how otherwise intelligent physicians
continue to be so dogmatic about nondrug therapies which they have no experience with.
The editors o f medical journals speak of evidence-based medicine with loud voices. They
pride in their medical 'facts' and deride the 'opinions' of integrative practitioners. In their myopic
view of medicine, they assert that what cannot be investigated with their blessed double-blind
cross-over methodology is not scientific, hence of no clinical value. They fail to see the glaring
disconnect between the needs of the sick and their notions of science in medicine. The sick needs
robust nutritional, environmental, and spiritual measures for healing. None of those measures can
be examined with their double-blind cross-over methodology for establishing drug therapies.
Consider this: Pathologists make the decisions with gravest consequences—who loses her
breast, whose brain gets radiated, whose marrow is wiped out by chemotherapy. Yet, when an
experienced pathologist renders a pathologic diagnosis to his peers, he considers that diagnosis
his opinion, albeit based on his evaluation of all the microscopic findings. I know that to be true.
I served as a hospital pathologist for twenty nine years. All astute clinicians do the same—make
therapeutic decisions based on their clinical sense o f the case—read clinical opinion—
notwithstanding their lip service to the so-called evidence-based medicine built on blinded
studies. Yet, the editors of medical journals persist with their mantra of every therapy that cannot
be blinded—read nutritional, environmental, and spiritual approaches—being unscientific.
Those who champion the label of evidence-based medicine—a euphemism for drug
medicine and suppression o f nondrug therapies—refuse to recognize the core problem with their
blessed double-blind cross-over model: individual drugs are blindly evaluated as single agents
for some months and then are administered concurrently with multiple other drugs for decades.
No drug manufacturer, of course, ever conducts trials of its drugs when prescribed in
combination with the drugs of its competitors. Yet, they are eager to dismiss the true-to-life
experiences o f thoughtful physicians, who work in 'clinical trenches' for decades. They dismiss
all nondrug therapies as 'unproven,' all in the name of their favored evidence-based medicine
slogan. They stubbornly refuse to see the fundamental difference between the use of drugs for
rapid symptom suppression and the value of nutritional, herbal, and self-regulatory approaches
for slow but sustained improvements in oxygen homeostasis and redox dynamics. The frivolous
'fact and opinion' mantra continues.
Coming to the subjects of 'facts' in medicine, is it a fact that cholesterol is an antioxidant? Is
it a fact that coronary artery disease is, first and foremost, an oxidative disorder? Is it a fact that
when one is subjected to incremental oxidative stress, one's antioxidant responses are
upregulated? Is it a fact that some people show marked increases in their blood cholesterol levels
when they are under unremitting stress? Is it a fact that blood cholesterol levels so raised begin to
fall when those issues of oxidative stress—including relentless anger and unrelenting sense of
being a victim—are effectively addressed? In light of that, what can be made of the guidelines
for statin usage promulgated by the 'cholesterol experts' paid by makers of those drugs? In view
of those considerations, may we ask, how many physicians view blood cholesterol levels in that
light when prescribing statin drugs?
In this first volume o f The Principles and Practice o f Medicine, I assert that no minerals,
proteins, enzymes, receptors, mediators, genetic sequences, or cellular colonies have any fixed
biologic roles. I marshall a very large body of clinical and biochemical data to support that view.
Drawing on that strength, I challenge the prevailing 'science' of drug medicine. I reject the the
pernicious belief o f the editors of medical journals that nondrug therapies are unscientific simply
because they cannot be blinded. All elements in human biology are components of a vast and
ever-changing kaleidoscope of energetic-molecular mosaics.