Isn’t it ironic that modern medicine rarely focuses on the ideas of “healthy aging” or “actual preventive measures and cures.” Instead, medicine promotes the ideas of bandages, cosmetic treatments and relationships to the finances around “Health Care” spending.
Personally, I would like a “Health Cure System” rather than our current “Health Care System.” Even our current “Health Care” term may be outdated and better called Wallet Care?
Welcome to the greatest wake-up call for this generation and future generations about how corrupt and broken a “system” can get.
The Real Question
Imagine going into any modern day Emergency Room and getting one pain pill that costs $53, but if you went across the street from the same Emergency Room into a supermarket, you could buy can entire bottle of the exact pain killer for 1/100th the price or less? Do you think this is may be happening right now? If so, why does society allow the financial spiral? There is actually a deeper question outside of the money loss of the system.
Why are doctors, nurses and other “Health Care” practitioners so uneducated in how energy is generated in our cells?
Energy is life. Without it, we’re pretty much as dead as a doorknob. Maybe the elimination of energy or talk about it in the medical community has helped to grow other aspects of the system?
The bottom line is that this current system doesn’t think about mitochondrial health first, or much at all for that matter. Our mitochondria are arguably the most underlooked and vital part of our long-term health. Many of our doctors may have received only a few weeks of training in it (decades ago) as a provider, even though mitochondria are at the basis of how we age, our energy levels (and therefore how we feel) and they are the sensors for our environments. And anyone aware of what this implies is the newer Scientific Field of Epigenetics and our gene expressions to the artificial exposures of toxins and frequencies from our modern environments.
How our medical systems stays broken is never calling them out about the ways they remove and downplay the very basis of our health. They do this by:
- Maintaining focus on their older paradigms.
- Attempting to tell us parts of nature herself are what contributes to many of our problems.
- Eliminating the biophysics of light and energy going on in our biology to prop-up “the chemical mass of things only” to get people over-focusing on the genetics of our nuclear DNA, rather than the epigenetic expressions and our environmental exposures.
The field of Epigenetics is by definition based within the health status of our mitochondrial DNA. Dr. Douglas Wallace helps to term a larger aspect of mitochondrial health as mitochondrial heteroplasmy: the ratio of healthy mtDNA segments to the mutant mtDNA within a cell.
Theory of Aging
In science, mitochondria is at the heart of the Theory of Aging. It has never been a question of if we are going to age in this life. We will all age no doubt. We must come to terms to this reality, however, we can be wise about strategies to slow-down aging and repairing our mitochondrial engines. It is always a question about how slowly we will age, and this is rooted in the engines of our energy factories, not the quackeries of the modern day Health Cureless System.
The true litmus test for any brilliant doctor of the future world will be to see how much they care about our mitochondria, and never lose sight of how the molecules in our bodies are being signaled with energy and light. But have our educational institutions been creating reductionist, mechanistic thinking professionals? Reductionism can be useful, but it is also very blind, especially in life that is made up of all types of systems, intensities and scales from our electromagnetic energy at extremely ultra-weak levels like how our bones emit light as LEDs, or, what is going on in Electron Chain Transport within the mitochondria with protons and electrons, or, the phospholipid bilayers that have embedded with receptor complexed like VGCCs and NMDAs that make up cell membranes.
We need to scrap the older paradigms of Health Care and think deeper about Mito Care instead if we are going to survive well in our future modern world.
Why is this the case? Because Science itself is asking much deeper questions about what is going on in our biology.
Some of these questions get complex quickly, such as:
- How likely excess oxidative stress could cause a flood of calcium in and out of a cell?
- What goes on with mtDNA mutant accumulation to decrease the energy generation of a cell for a maternally-coded disease expression likelihood at a certain mutant-rate?
- How a mitochondrial rotor is spinning optimally or suboptimal to generate the energy in tandem with deuterium concentrations in those spaces?
- How the cycles of the day or season for the status of various free-radical scavengers like Vitamin D or Melatonin might be helping keep oxidative stress in-check more?
- How mitochondrial DNA cross-talks with nuclear DNA and for what reasons under what conditions?
When we form opinions about what we think is happening in biology, it’s beyond wise to keep in mind that these are observations…things we observe over time with data points, but it’s not absolute truth, because biology and all of the processes and systems are evolving, moving and dynamic every moment in the body, with cell cycles, with how DNA is being packed or unraveled with chromatin, how exposed our mitochondria are to environmental factors, how much natural light and energy we are absorbing or not, and so forth. It is also wise to visualise in imagery and other techniques what could be happening inside of the dynamics of life to see if the typical scientist or researcher may be missing some key insight, simply because when we add up what is going on at different scales and what could be impacting one system to the next could easily get overlooked.
Our Current Education System
Students in their university training are really getting just a glimpse and taste of biology with the basics of chemistry and some physics help ponder how interactions are working within biological processes and systems, including what happens across scales and over time. How we educate our future scientists, doctors, nurses and researchers is often a narrative game in itself, including what chunks of the sciences that rarely show up in course curriculums or talked about in any depth and in synergy in biology, rather than a compartmentalization approach. We have already entered a time where many of our educators need educators. Typically, our educational institutions compel students to think like knowledge compartments in the Titanic. For those that may not realize how the ship was built, the Titanic had five main engine compartments to ensure if flooding happened, it would not sink. As long as only 1 or 2 of the five compartments flooded with water, there would still be 3 or 4 Compartments that would still be free from the water displacement to ensure it would not sink.
Keeping each compartment unique from the four other compartments has some advantages for this reason, but this is not a great approach for learning complex systems and our dynamic biology with light, water, electric fields, magnetism, chemistry and other interactions at work all at the same moment in time. Educators typically teach students to learn about a particular topic, like DNA, so we often keep the knowledge stored in one tank. Each course we take in high school or college is typically designed to compartmentalize, focus concepts and use just one or a few examples about an application. Then when we learn about light physics, we only think about astronomy applications. Reductionism produces paradigm locks and a “way of thinking” that downplays the synergies and dynamics actually happening in life itself.
Crossing over disciplines is rarely done, even among our brightest students, as knowledge acquisition alone is not equivalent to personal creativity and imaginative linkages that could arise with newer knowledge attained. Typically though, the physicist just knows a ton of physics, or the biologist only knows a lot of biochemistry, and they rarely get together to share notes. Knowledge breadth is totally undervalued. We see this at every major university across the world where students go into specific departments to learn about a focus, rather than getting a broader cross-over education.
And in ironic fashion, much of our educational institutions look down upon a student that may have a creative insight to fill in a blank that may be questioned or has gone unanswered, especially if an idea could undermine a status-quo element within science. Those individuals that society usually labels as our great geniuses are often the minds that take their knowledge compartments and shove them together, mix them around, and mush them up in various ways to find new behaviors, insights, concepts or missing links. These same genius minds have first done a LOT of due-diligence to learn about the depth or breadth of as much science as possible. The more information an individual acquires that turns into knowledge application, the more ideas can be thrown around with creativity and wisdom to see if an observation about a new insight can be repeated.
However, this idealistic method I just described about how to create genius in our modern age at the beginning of the 21st Century is fleeting. Any scientist like myself or other scholars generally understand the massive political structure around the Scientific Method within many circles across the world, because Science itself is at the basis of how things in the world work and that knowledge, when put into the hands of a few individuals, creates control with this power over those that may not have acquired the knowledge for application. For this reason, the morality of what humans are taught is rarely brought up in society; the omission of scientific knowledge from the majority is one of the most overlooked concerns in our era, especially if it relates to our health and well-being.
Mixing Science X with Science Y
In the world of Hollywood itself, writers and directors usually pitch a new film idea by taking a crossover approach. It makes sense that those that are creative-minded have come to use such a mushing-together-of-ideas approach, because the Entertainment Industry thrives on providing a new and unique movie. Typically, a writer will talk to a director in this manner, “My movie idea is basically Movie X meets Movie Y, but with these differences.” This helps the listener immediately understand what the movie pitch is about and if they believe investors would want to throw enough $$ at the concept to make it happen. However, there is a key point that should not be missed. The movie pitch puts the onus on the Producers and movie-dealers to have previously acquired enough knowledge about as many movies as possible. In the event the writer pitches a Movie X or Movie Y that is somewhat uncommon, the writer may even ask a producer or director ahead of time to first watch the movies for context.
Let’s take an example a hypothetic pitch. The writer may try to sell a script saying, “This movie is Crocodile Dundee meets The Truman Show, but the twist is that our main character knows about the fake Truman Show setting from the beginning, but manipulates the actors instead. The main character is very cool, like Crocodile Dundee, and manipulates all of the actors around him in the Truman Show world to get all of them to join forces with him for an amazing escape.” Because there are endless combinations, it can be a quite fun thing for anyone to do. For the public that absorbs a ton of entertainment, this seems extremely easy to do… just take your two favorite movies, mush them up and get them to work out. Look, you’re a genius!
So when we look at the scientist and what information that scientist has acquired, we have a much longer path. First, we must learn a great deal more information about all of the sciences, then we can mush them around with various processes at various scales and systems to entertain an idea that may not have been considered or even a lost observation that needs to be rekindled. Often it takes many years and decades to acquire detailed knowledge about the processes and mechanisms from various scientific disciplines, but also not to keep them locked up and guarded under in a compartment.
Genius Outside of Pandora’s Box
As it may be clear now, the major quandary of society is that it has been trained to think within a single compartment in an attempt to make sense of the compartment itself. But does this reflect observational reality? Reductionistic thinking is actually a disservice to how our dynamic life processes. So when the researcher comes along and combines two compartments like two movie scripts, it can look quite insane and crazy to classically trained, reductionistic-minded thinker that hasn’t considered some deeper understanding about the greater breadth of the conditions, variables and possibilities that could be influencing something in biology. When we look at the universe around us at its complexity, life’s complexity is at the top of the list.
Something as simple as a tight band of light frequencies may not have even been considered or had experimental controls in place to properly vet an experiment that was focused on just the biochemistry taking place. Often, the simple processes we observe, combined with a multitude of subtle factors, interactions and cycles right under our noses, creates much more than what we would observe on the surface. For this reason, it can be hard to separate the crazy from the genius. We see society often portray this narrative with Einstein and others: scientists that think about things in different ways are often labelled, “that researcher is a bit off his rocker” to poke and jab about what doesn’t make sense to the layman.
The New Angle
In the 21st Century, I believe we need to embrace creative people more than ever; those that benefit from the status-quo will put labels on those that connect more dots about their environments and how health is impacted in an attempt to discredit them. Future Crazitivity may be the new angle that saves humanity when it is clear that the fundamental structure of our Health Care system is not only broken financially, it’s not designed to cure people as implied by the Hippocratic Oath itself. Hippocrates also said:
“Before you heal someone, ask him if he is willing to give up the things that made him sick.”
Our 21st Century revision goes more like:
“Before you heal someone, ask him if he is willing to give up the things, behaviors and environments that made him sick.”
The way modern science is practiced and implemented needs a paradigm shift itself in how we think about setting up dynamic biological interactions. A great example is the recent NIH NTP study showing a single 3G frequency able to produce heart tumors. But this test was not a realistic real-world example about how humanity is being exposed to nnEMF environments. So why didn’t they use multiple frequencies, add stray voltage, turn up the electric and magnetic fields, etc. that can be common in a typical office setting? Because the design of the study was once again very reductionistic, compartmentalized and easier on the wallet and checkbooks.
If humans are someday allowed to design experiments that are more real-world observational setups, we may finally get closer to the truth in some future world about how our health is continually being influenced by our environments. But because of testing all of the dynamics and variables in-play, we can expect the money costs to be insanely high as the largest reasoning why we stay in the dark about our environmental electro-pollution. Those that wish to craft the nnEMF narrative in a positive light are banking on the fact that no army of scientists will be able to attain enough money to show a convincing and synergistic study that could awaken the public. For these reasons, we have entered a time where our mitochondrial health status and our ability to create energy within our cells has become a great piece in the overall puzzle of life, while the outdated government and medical rarely considers the consequences and exposures from a patient’s environment.
- Do doctors visit a patient’s home and test for nnEMF?
- Do they look at a patient’s choice of light bulbs for the frequencies they emit?
- Do they consider the behaviors about how the patient consumes a device or screen for how long in the day and with circadian rhythm?
- Do doctors ask if a patient gets outside in the morning into sunlight, takes a morning walk or the patient’s source of hydration?
For people to heal, many of our root causes that crash our health may be within the dirty fish tanks we inhabit daily along with our modern behaviors with technology. So how wise is it to downplay our Mito Care and remove our daily environmental exposures from the conversation? How wise is it to neglect using nature? How wise is it for the medical establishment to embrace new technologies in their new facility designs and practices? The field of Epigenetics is arguably as important as Genetics. Our mitochondrial DNA is arguably as important as our nuclear DNA. Moreover, I believe it is wise to address the patient as much as the patient’s environment in our modern world to thrive well. Hyper-focusing on the fish and neglecting how that fish makes energy for survival, while that same fish swims around daily in a dirty fish tank misses huge parts of life’s synergies.