symptomology

Excerpt from Never Be Sick Again by Raymond Francis:

Our society’s current understanding of disease is based on the concept of symptomology. Symptomology is about focusing on, identifying and categorizing symptoms—in other words, the effects produced by disease. In this manner, doctors supposedly can differentiate one disease from another. Because the entirety of modern medicine and everything we have ever learned about disease is based on symptomology, the concept of only one disease may seem unacceptably simplistic. Actually the symptomology concept is the flawed one.

Symptomology is based on a fundamental misconception, one held by virtually all medical establishments in Western society. The misconception is that thousands of different diseases exist, each with different symptoms, causes and treatments. This misconception stems from the many different ways that cells can malfunction, and therefore the thousands of different symptoms that can be produced. The modern medical treatment of almost all disease focuses on the management of these symptoms (the effects of disease), rather than eliminating the causes, which are deficiency and toxicity. People are told to take insulin to manage their blood sugar rather than eliminating their diabetes, or to take diuretics to treat their hypertension rather than normalizing their blood pressure. They are told to have a bypass operation rather than reversing their heart disease or to undergo chemotherapy rather than healing their cancer.

Diagnosis by symptoms is the process by which modern medicine gives each collection of symptoms a particular name. Medicine views symptoms as enemies, and physicians are trained to eliminate them, even if that means aggressively assaulting the body with dangerous toxins, radiation or invasive surgery. Symptomology leads the medical profession to look at symptoms individually, organize them into thousands of categories, label them as different diseases and then prescribe a currently accepted protocol to suppress those symptoms. This approach adds needless complexity, creates massive confusion and results in an inability to deal with disease in a meaningful way.

In truth, each collection of symptoms—each specific “disease”—is just a different expression of malfunctioning cells. However, with all of our different types of cells, and all of the different ways in which each cell can malfunction, the number of possible combinations of symptoms becomes vast. In other words, when cells malfunction, we may feel sick in many different ways.

sugar is bad for your brain

Scientists have known that sugar is bad for the brain since 1927, when a biochemist named Herbert Crabtree discovered that elevated glucose levels lower mitochondrial function... sugar has been shown to decrease the number of dopamine receptors in our brains... All forms of sugar are bad for your brain, but fructose — found in fruit, high-fructose corn syrup, and agave nectar — is the worst. Fructose creates oxidative stress and feeds the bad bacteria in your gut, leading to even more inflammation. Fructose is implicated in damaging mitochondria in skeletal muscle cells, harming the mitochondrial membrane, and impairing cellular respiration and energy metabolism. While your brain won’t suffer too much in you eat moderate amounts of whole, seasonal fruits, you should avoid consuming excessive amounts of fructose and completely stay away from fruit juice and foods that contain high-fructose corn syrup and agave nectar. Try to limit your intake to about 20 grams of fructose a day.

questioning immunology

The preschool-level depictions of the immune system as a troop of soldiers fighting off the enemy germ invaders are indicative of a fundamental lack of understanding we have about immunology. In fact, the vast majority of immunology is thoroughly and completely devoted to vaccinology. 

Wait, vaccines must have beneficial effect if they produce antibodies, right? Antibodies have been deemed synonymous with disease protection, and we’ve even used a surrogate marker for claims that vaccines “work” in the laboratory setting, but is there actually any science for this? And do the antibodies produced upon vaccination actually bind to and inactivate disease-causing agents? What if antibodies are simply response elements that support the body’s reaction to the many toxic chemicals in vaccines, ranging from detergents like polysorbate 80 to formaldehyde?

And what about contagion? It has never actually been proven that germs travel from one person to another and infect them. Germs as pathogens is a complex question that science has contributed an abundance of literature to in the past few decades. But with the dawn of the microbiome — our inner ecology that reveals not only our harmonious relationship to but our dependency on the very microbes we have demonized — everything about orthodox medicine should have changed. Including the discovery of so-called viruses embedded in our own genomic material, calling into question whether or not viruses actually exist in the way we have assumed.

Has a discrete virus, deemed unable to exist independently, ever been visualized under an electron microscope, or are we still inferring? Research into our inner ecology now speculates that up to 8% of what we call human DNA may have been viral in origin; this is called the virome. Viral, meaning nucleic acids in a protein coat that require cells to replicate, essentially nonliving agents of genetic information transfer. As we understand more about how genetic information is passed between living entities, we may come to question the vectors we empowered with causal roles. 

Transmission of effects can take many forms that we can understand when we step out of the body of conventional medicine. Does a yawn spread like germs supposedly do? What about women’s menstrual cycles syncing up when they live together? Or the spread of fear-induced illness, which is strikingly demonstrated in a study in which women who were convinced that they were inhaling “contaminated air” got sick when they saw others getting sick from it — despite the fact that there was nothing wrong with the air.[1] Then there are people who only get symptoms of a cold when they believe themselves to be unwell at baseline. All of these situations bring the simplistic theory of germs spreading by physical pathogens alone into question.

It seems that the symptoms of infection are evidence that the body knows how to, and needs too, eliminate. Vomiting, diarrhea, sweating, coughing, sneezing, and runny noses all have exudative elimination in common. This likely also explains why so many people develop cold after after pneumonia after cold after bronchitis during and after their taper process: their immune systems are finally able to begin to mobilize stored toxicants.

As we sit in even more curious territory, what other assumptions have we make that have been disproven or remain unproven to date? Science can be a beautiful tool for discovery, but only if it is allowed to dispassionately acknowledge when a more complete picture is emerging. Charles Eisenstein, wrote in Ascent of Humanity: “when we see germs as predators who seek to steal ‘resources’ from us for their own biological interest (survival and reproduction), then a rational response is to deny them those resources, to hide from the predators or fight them off — the fight-or-flight response… If I believe, on the contrary, that there is some reason specific to my own body why the flu has infected me and not you, then the program of control doesn’t make sense anymore.”

Sometimes all it takes is a friendly reminder that when you are aligned with your body — and truly make a truce with it — you can access limitless reservoirs of healing energy. This is the reclamation we should all be interested in. Once we understand that our symptoms and illness have meaning, that they are sending us a message, and we trust our body’s capacity to move through them when supported, we become unstoppable vessels of revolution in today’s bio-coontroled society. 

snacking is stupid

Prior to 1977, not only did we eat more dietary fat and fewer refined grains, we also ate less often. There were no official recommendations to change our eating patterns but we did, which probably has contributed to the obesity crisis. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) study* in 1977 found that most people ate three times per day: breakfast, lunch, and dinner. If you wanted an after-school snack, your mom said, “No, you’ll ruin your dinner.” If you wanted a bedtime snack, she just said no. Snacking was considered neither necessary nor healthy. A snack was a treat, to be taken only very occasionally. Yet now, we are often told that eating more frequently will help weight loss. No scientific data supports this assumption, and it has gained respectability only through mindless repetition. At first glance, it sounds pretty stupid. And it sounds stupid because it is stupid.

---

Reference: *Popkin BM, Duffey KJ. Does hunger and satiety drive eating anymore? Am J Clin Nutr. 2010; 91: 1342–7.)

time isn’t linear

In July 2000, Israeli doctor Leonard Leibovici conducted a double-blind, randomized controlled trial involving 3,393 hospital patients, divided into a control group and an “intercession” group. He set out to see whether prayer could have an effect on their condition. Prayer experiments are great examples of mind affecting matter at a distance. But stay with me here, because everything is not always what it seems. Leibovici selected patients who had suffered sepsis (an infection) while hospitalized. He randomly designated half the patients to have prayers said for them, while the other half were not prayed for. He compared the results in three categories: how long fever lasted, length of hospital stay, and how many died as a result of the infection.

The prayed-for benefited from an earlier decrease in fever and a shorter hospitalization time; the difference in the number of deaths among the prayed-for and not-prayed-for groups was not statistically significant, although better in the prayed-for group. That’s a powerful demonstration of the benefits of prayer and how we can send an intention out into the quantum field through our thoughts and feelings. However, there’s one additional element to this story that you should know about.

Did it strike you as slightly odd that in July 2000, a hospital would have more than 3,000 cases of infection at once? Was it a very poorly sterilized place, or was some kind of contagion running rampant? Actually, those who were praying weren’t praying for patients who were infected in 2000. Instead, unbeknownst to them, they were praying for lists of people who had been in the hospital from 1990 to 1996—four to ten years prior to the experiment! The prayed-for patients actually got better during the 1990s from the experiment conducted years later. Let me say this another way: the patients who were prayed for in 2000 all showed measurable changes in health, but those changes took effect years before

Reference: Leibovici, Leonard, M.D., “Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial.” BMJ (British Medical Journal), vol. 323: 1450–1451 (22 December 2001

— via Breaking the Habit of Being Yourself

glyphosate and sunburns

Melanoma rates have increased in step with the increased use of sunscreen. Though causality has not been proven, there is a strong correlation between sunscreen use and melanoma, which doesn’t make sense since sunscreen is supposed to protect you from the harmful sun’s rays. The connection is thought to start with glyphosate, the herbicide in Roundup, disrupts the skin’s natural ability to protect itself from the sun. Gut microbes normally produce tryptophan and tyrosine, amino acids that serve as precursors of melanin, the dark compound in tan or dark-skinned types. They are meant to soak up UV light and protect you from any damage it might cause. But when your food is exposed to glyphosate, it affects your gut microbes and they cannot produce enough of these amino acids. Your natural mechanisms for sun protection stop functioning. This contributes to dangerous sunburns and/or melanoma—not because of exposure to the sun itself but because of exposure to chemicals that kill off the bacteria you need to protect yourself from the sun. You also need plenty of polyphenols (compounds from brightly colored plants) in your diet for your skin to manufacture melanin because melanin is made out of cross-linked polyphenols.

you need the D

One of the many problems with the Western diet is that it’s lacking key micronutrients that we need to create hormones, specifically vitamin D, which is essential for testosterone production. As you read earlier, almost everyone is now deficient in vitamin D because of our overavoidance of UV light. This is likely a major reason behind the decrease in testosterone levels. A study published in 2010 looked at the vitamin D and testosterone levels of more than two thousand men over the course of a full year. The results showed that men with healthy vitamin D levels had more testosterone and lower levels of sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) than the men who were vitamin D deficient. SHBG binds to hormones so your cells can’t use them. If you have too much of it, your testosterone levels will drop.

• E. Wehr et al., “Association of Vitamin D Status with Serum Androgen Levels in Men,” Clinical Endocrinology 73, no. 2 (August 2010): 243–48, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2265.2009.03777.x.

you need cholesterol

Here’s how your body makes testosterone: cholesterol→ pregnenolone→ androstenedione→ testosterone.

Testosterone begins with cholesterol. In fact, you synthesize every single sex hormone from cholesterol. This is one reason that a “heart healthy” low-fat, low-cholesterol diet is horribly aging. Research confirms that men who eat saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, and cholesterol have higher testosterone levels than those who follow a low-fat diet.

• Jeff S. Volek et al., “Testosterone and Cortisol in Relationship to Dietary Nutrients and Resistance Exercise,” Journal of Applied Physiology 82, no. 1 (1997): 49–54, https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1997.82.1.49.

your kale is full of metal

Kale and other brassica vegetables such as cabbage are exceptionally good at taking up thallium from soil. A 2006 peer-reviewed paper by Czech researchers confirms this to be true of kale,1 and a 2013 study from China found the same issue in green cabbage.2 In fact, brassicas are so effective at soaking up thallium that in 2015 Chinese researchers found they could use green cabbage to purify soil of thallium.3 In other words, the cabbage soaked up all the thallium in the soil, leaving the soil itself toxin-free. Think about that the next time someone offers you a kale smoothie or coleslaw made with conventionally grown cabbage!

1. J. Pavlíčková et al., “Uptake of Thallium from Artificially Contaminated Soils by Kale (Brassica oleracea L. var. acephala),” Plant, Soil and Environment 52, no. 12 (December 2006): 484–91, https://doi.org/10.17221/3545-PSE.

2. Yanlong Jia et al., “Thallium at the Interface of Soil and Green Cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata L.): Soil-Plant Transfer and Influencing Factors,” Science of the Total Environment 450–51 (April 15, 2013): 140–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.02.008.

3. Zenping Ning et al., “High Accumulation and Subcellular Distribution of Thallium in Green Cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. Var. Capitata L.),” International Journal of Phytoremediation 17, no. 11 (2015): 1097–104, https://doi.org/10.1080/15226514.2015.1045133.)

PQQ

Research on mice supports PQQ’s ability to kick mitochondria into high gear. Specifically, it can increase mitochondrial density to provide more energy,1 reduce inflammation,2 boost metabolism,3 combat oxidative stress,4 improve fertility,5 improve learning and memory ability,6 and protect the heart.7 PQQ also activates PCG-1 alpha in the same way that exercise can, which sparks mitochondrial biogenesis.8 This means that one supplement can enhance your existing mitochondria and help you grow new ones, all while acting as an incredibly powerful antioxidant.

1. K. A. Bauerly et al., “Pyrroloquinoline Quinone Nutritional Status Alters Lysine Metabolism and Modulates Mitochondrial DNA Content in the Mouse and Rat,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1760, no. 11 (November 2006): 1741–48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagen.2006.07.009.

2. Calliandra B. Harris et al., “Dietary Pyrroloquinoline Quinone (PQQ) Alters Indicators of Inflammation and Mitochondrial-Related Metabolism in Human Subjects,” The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry 24, no. 12 (December 2013): 2076–84, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnutbio.2013.07.008.

3. K. Bauerly et al., “Altering Pyrroloquinoline Quinone Nutritional Status Modulates Mitochondrial, Lipid, and Energy Metabolism in Rats,” PLoS One 6, no. 7 (2011): e21779, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021779.

4. Kana Nunome et al., “Pyrroloquinoline Quinone Prevents Oxidative Stress-Induced Neuronal Death Probably Through Changes in Oxidative Status of DJ-1,” Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin 31, no. 7 (July 2008): 1321–26, https://doi.org/10.1248/bpb.31.1321.

5. Francene M. Steinberg, M. Eric Gershwin, and Robert B. Rucker, “Dietary Pyrroloquinoline Quinone: Growth and Immune Response in BALB/c Mice,” The Journal of Nutrition 124, no. 5 (May 1994): 744–53, https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/124.5.744.

6. Kei Ohwada et al., “Pyrroloquinoline Quinone (PQQ) Prevents Cognitive Deficit Caused by Oxidative Stress in Rats,” Journal of Clinical Biochemistry and Nutrition 42, no. 1 (January 2008): 29–34, https://doi.org/10.3164/jcbn.2008005.

7. Bo-qing Zhu et al., “Pyrroloquinoline Quinone (PQQ) Decreases Myocardial Infarct Size and Improves Cardiac Function in Rat Models of Ischemia and Ischemia/Reperfusion,” Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy 18, no. 6 (November 2004): 421–31, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10557-004-6219-x.

8. Pere Puigserver, “Tissue-Specific Regulation of Metabolic Pathways Through the Transcriptional Coactivator PGC1-alpha,” International Journal of Obesity 29, Supplement 1 (March)

go get some sun

A recent study of twenty-nine thousand women in Sweden who were tracked over twenty years concluded that “avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking.” The study showed that people who avoided the sun had a reduced life expectancy of between 0.6 and 2.1 years.1

1. Pelle G. Lindqvist et al., “Avoidance of Sun Exposure as a Risk Factor for Major Causes of Death: A Competing Risk Analysis of the Melanoma in Southern Sweden Cohort,” Journal of Internal Medicine 280, no. 4 (October 2016): 375–87, https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12496.)

excess blue light

Excess blue light also causes inflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction, primarily because of its impact on glucose control. In the evening, exposure to blue light causes a peak in glucose levels, leading to higher blood sugar and an increase in insulin resistance.1 This means your blood sugar is higher than it should be, and your body doesn’t adequately move that sugar out of your bloodstream. The result is that you are at a greater risk of weight gain2 and developing type 2 diabetes

1. Bhagyesh R. Sarode et al., “Light Control of Insulin Release and Blood Glucose Using an Injectable Photoactivated Depot,” Molecular Pharmacology 13, no. 11 (November 7, 2016): 3835–41, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.6b00633; Marla Paul, “Exposure to Bright Light May Alter Blood Sugar,” Futurity, May 19, 2016, https://www.futurity.org/bright-light-metabolism-1166262–2/.

2. Nataliya A. Rybnikova, A. Haim, and Boris A. Portnov, “Does Artificial Light-at-Night Exposure Contribute to the Worldwide Obesity Pandemic?,” International Journal of Obesity 40, no. 5 (May 2016): 815–23, https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2015.255.)

kill senescent cells

fisetin, a polyphenol found in seaweed and strawberries. One study showed that high doses of fisetin could kill up to 50 percent of senescent cells in a particular organ.1 While research on how to use fisetin to most effectively destroy zombie cells isn’t complete, research indicates that it is a cognitive enhancer.2 This is likely thanks to its direct antioxidant activity and ability to increase levels of other antioxidants in your cells. More antioxidants equals less oxidative stress and more energy throughout the body, including your brain!

• 1.“Animal Data Shows Fisetin to Be a Surprisingly Effective Senolytic,” Fight Aging!, October 3, 2018, https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2018/10/animal-data-shows-fisetin-to-be-a-surprisingly-effective-senolytic/.

• 2.Pamela Maher, “How Fisetin Reduces the Impact of Age and Disease on CNS Function,” Frontiers in Bioscience (Scholar Edition) 7 (June 1, 2015): 58–82, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25961687.)

shorten telomeres with exercise

Exercise is another important way of preventing early telomere shortening. Researchers in Germany looked at telomere length in four groups of people: those who were young and sedentary, those who were young and active, those who were middle-aged and sedentary, and those who were middle-aged and active. There wasn’t much of a difference between the two groups of young people, but when the participants were middle-aged, the change in telomere lengths was striking. The sedentary middle-aged folks had telomeres that were 40% shorter than the young people, while the active middle-aged folks had telomeres that were only 10 percent shorter than the young people. In other words, the active group reduced their telomere shortening by 75 percent.1 Exercise significantly reduces perceived stress levels and inflammation,2 which may help to explain these results.

• 1. Gretchen Reynolds, “Phys Ed: How Exercising Keeps Your Cells Young,” New York Times Well, January 27, 2010, https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/phys-ed-how-exercising-keeps-your-cells-young/?scp=1&sq=how%20exercising%20keeps%20your%20cells%20young&st=cse.

• 2. Angela R. Starkweather, “The Effects of Exercise on Perceived Stress and IL-6 Levels Among Older Adults,” Biological Research for Nursing 8, no. 3 (January 2007): 186–94, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17172317.