Boeknotities: The Biology of Belief 10th Anniversary Edition door Bruce H. Lipton

di, 20/07/2021 - 18:47

The Biology of Belief van Bruce Lipton is zo één van die boeken die je wereldbeeld totaal overhoop halen. Dit boek is wellicht de ultieme weerlegging van The Selfish Gene van Richard Dawkins. We worden NIET geregeerd door onze genen. Onze genen luisteren naar ons. Absolute aanrader.

  • Lipton gelooft helaas nog wel virustheorie en beschrijft hier het proces van het ontstaan van antilichamen in het geval van het "mazelenvirus":
    The first step in generating a specific measles antibody gene occurs in the nuclei of immature immune cells. Among their genes are a very large number of DNA segments that encode uniquely shaped snippets of proteins. By randomly assembling and recombining these DNA segments, immune cells create a vast array of different genes, each one providing for a uniquely shaped antibody protein. When an immature immune cell produces an antibody protein that is a “close” physical complement to the invading measles virus, that cell will be activated. Activated cells employ an amazing mechanism called affinity maturation that enables the cell to perfectly “adjust” the final shape of its antibody protein, so that it will become a perfect complement to the invading measles virus. (Li, et al, 2003; Adams, et al, 2003) Using a process called somatic hypermutation, activated immune cells make hundreds of copies of their original antibody gene. However, each new version of the gene is slightly mutated so that it will encode a slightly different shaped antibody protein. The cell selects the variant gene that makes the best-fitting antibody. This selected version of the gene also goes through repeated rounds of somatic hypermutation to further sculpt the shape of the antibody to become a “perfect” physical complement of the measles virus. (Wu, et al, 2003; Blanden and Steele 1998; Diaz and Casali 2002; Gearhart 2002)
  • Maar hij ziet wel nog het onmisbare nut van microben en de gevaren van bvb. antibiotica:
    In his alarming new book, Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics Is Fueling Our Modern Plagues, Dr. Martin J. Blaser, Director of the Human Microbiome Program at New York University, warns not only about antibiotic resistance but also about the declining diversity of the human microbiome that is increasing our susceptibility to chronic conditions from allergies and asthma to diabetes and obesity. For example, type 1 diabetes has been doubling in incidence about every twenty years in the industrialized world; in Finland, the incidence has risen 550 percent since 1950. Blaser writes that these modern epidemics are “not only diseases but also external signs of internal change.” Recent studies have found that “otherwise normal individuals have lost 15 to 40 percent of their microbial diversity and the genes that accompany it” mostly due to the overprescription of broad-spectrum antibiotics that kill microbes indiscriminately. Yet Blaser, who has studied the microbes that populate our bodies for thirty years, calls them and their 20 million genes the “guerrilla warriors” that help us fight disease. (Blaser 2014)
  • Zijn de genen in controle? Deze stelling is enkel dat...een stelling, een hypothese:
    What activates genes? The answer was elegantly spelled out in 1990 in a paper entitled Metaphors and the Role of Genes and Development by H. F. Nijhout. (Nijhout 1990) Nijhout presents evidence that the notion that genes control biology has been so frequently repeated for such a long period of time that scientists have forgotten it is a hypothesis, not a truth. In reality, the idea that genes control biology is a supposition, which has never been proven and, in fact, has been undermined by the latest scientific research. Genetic control, argues Nijhout, has become a metaphor in our society. We want to believe that genetic engineers are the new medical magicians who can cure diseases and while they’re at it create more Einsteins and Mozarts as well. But metaphor does not equate with scientific truth. Nijhout summarizes the truth: “When a gene product is needed, a signal from its environment, not an emergent property of the gene itself, activates expression of that gene.” In other words, when it comes to genetic control, “It’s the environment, stupid.”
  • Cellen bestaan uit vier grote moleculen: polysacchariden, vetten, DNA/RNA en eiwitten. Eiwitten zijn het belangrijkste.
    Organic chemists discovered that cells are made up of four types of very large molecules: polysaccharides (complex sugars), lipids (fats), nucleic acids (DNA/RNA), and proteins. Though the cell requires each of the four molecular types, proteins are the most important single component for living organisms. Our cells are, in the main, an assembly of protein building blocks. So one way of looking at our trillion-celled bodies is that they are protein machines, although, as you know, I think we are more than machines! It sounds simple, but it isn’t. For one thing, it takes over 100,000 different types of proteins to run our bodies.
  • Eiwtten controleren het gedrag van cellen, niet DNA:
    You’ll notice that, in the above section, I didn’t discuss DNA at all. That’s because it is the changing of the proteins’ electromagnetic charges that is responsible for their behavior-generating movement, not DNA. How did we get to the widespread and often-cited notion that genes “control” biology? In the Origin of Species, Darwin suggested that “hereditary” factors were passed on from generation to generation, controlling the traits of the offspring. Darwin’s influence was so great that scientists myopically focused on identifying that hereditary material, which, they thought, controlled life.
  • De idee dat DNA in controle is is door Francis Crick tot een Centraal Dogma omgetoverd:
    The “suggestion” that DNA controlled its own replication and served as the blueprint for the body’s proteins led Francis Crick to create biology’s Central Dogma, the belief that DNA rules. The dogma was so fundamental to modern biology it was essentially written in stone, the equivalent of science’s Ten Commandments. The dogma, also referred to as “the Primacy of DNA,” is a fixture of almost every scientific text.
  • Hoe ziet dit Centraal Dogma er concreet uit:
    In the dogma’s scheme of how life unfolds, DNA perches loftily on top, followed by RNA. RNA is the shortlived Xerox copy of the DNA. As such, it is the physical template encoding the amino acid sequence that makes up a protein’s backbone. The Primacy of DNA diagram provides the logic for the Age of Genetic Determinism. Because the character of a living organism is defined by the nature of its proteins and its proteins are encoded in the DNA, then by logic, DNA would represent the “first cause,” or primary determinant of an organism’s traits.
    The Central Dogma’s assumption of a one-way flow of information from DNA to RNA to protein is profoundly important. Since proteins represent the physical body, the dogma implies that your physical body, and your life experiences cannot send information back and alter the DNA. According to the Dogma, DNA controls your life and you cannot influence your DNA!
  • Epigenetica negeert ten onrechte totaal de omgeving:
    The science of epigenetics has also made it clear that there are two mechanisms by which organisms pass on hereditary information. Those two mechanisms provide a way for scientists to study both the contribution of nature (genes) and the contribution of nurture (epigenetic mechanisms) in human behavior. If you only focus on the DNA blueprints, as scientists have been doing for decades, the influence of the environment is impossible to fathom. (Dennis 2003; Chakravarti and Little 2003)
    This time the headlines “Diet Trumps Genes” were accurate. The mothers who got the methyl-group-rich supplements produced standard, lean, brown mice, even though their offspring had the same agouti gene as their mothers. The agouti mothers who didn’t get the supplements produced yellow pups, which ate much more than the brown pups. The yellow pups wound up weighing almost twice as much as their lean, “pseudo-agouti” counterparts.
    The University’s photo, shown above, is striking. Though the two mice are genetically identical, they are radically different in appearance: one mouse is lean and brown and the other mouse is obese and yellow. What you can’t see in the picture is that the obese mouse is diabetic while its genetically identical counterpart is healthy.
    Other studies have found epigenetic mechanisms to be a factor in a variety of diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. In fact, only 5 percent of cancer and cardiovascular patients can attribute their disease directly to heredity. (Willett 2002; Silverman 2004) While the media made a big hoopla over the discovery of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer genes, they failed to emphasize that 95 percent of breast cancers are not due to inherited genes. The malignancies in a significant number of cancer patients are derived from environmentally induced epigenetic alterations and not defective genes. (Kling 2003; Jones 2001; Seppa 2000; Baylin 1997) Recently, eminent scientist and physician Dean Ornish revealed that by just changing diet and lifestyle for ninety days, prostate cancer patients switched the activity of over 500 genes. Many of their gene changes inhibited biological processes critical in the formation of their tumors. (Ornish, et al, 2008)
    But there is a catch! Life experiences can stimulate or suppress telomerase activity. For example, stressful prenatal developmental experiences, childhood abuse (both verbal and physical), domestic violence, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), nutritional deficiencies, and lack of love all inhibit telomerase activity. These factors contribute to the onset of disease and a shortened life span. In contrast, exercise, good nutrition, a positive outlook on life, living in happiness and gratitude, being in service, and experiencing love, especially self-love, all enhance telomerase activity and promote a long and healthy life. (Blackburn and Epel 2012, Stetka 2014) In fact, a recent Canadian study found that breast cancer patients who were involved in a support group and mindfulness meditation preserved telomere length while the telomeres of a control group without those interventions became shorter. (Carlson, et al, 2014)
  • DNA controleren niet de operaties van de cel:
    But as remarkable as these DNA blueprints are, they do not “control” the operations of the cell. Logically, genes cannot preprogram a cell or organism’s life because cell survival depends on the ability to dynamically adjust to an ever-changing environment.
  • "Intelligent" gedrag van de cel komt niet van zijn DNA:
    To exhibit “intelligent” behavior, cells need a functioning membrane with both receptor (awareness) and effector (action) proteins. These protein complexes are the fundamental units of cellular intelligence. Technically they may be referred to as units of “perception.” The definition of perception is “awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation.” The first part of the definition describes the function of receptor IMPs. The second part of the definition, the creation of a “physical sensation,” sums up the role of the effector proteins.
  • Tijd voor een rehabilitatie van cholesterol:
    Membrane research is also helping rehabilitate the reputation of cholesterol, which has long been vilified as the culprit in the modern-day scourges of cardiac disease, heart attacks, and stroke. In a case of guilt by association, high levels of cholesterol are present in 35 percent of patients with cardiovascular disease, and at sites of vascular damage, the endothelial cells, the inner lining of blood vessels, are loaded with cholesterol droplets. But I want to offer a more nuanced view of cholesterol, which is often lost in the rush to demonize it. Cholesterol is a lipid molecule that plays a vital role in our day-to-day survival. It is, for example, the precursor for the synthesis of important steroid molecules, including the bile salts used in digestion, regulatory steroid hormones such as estrogen and cortisol, and vitamin D. More relevant to this chapter, cholesterol is an essential component of the membrane whose function is required for the survival of our 50 trillion cells, which is another way of saying our survival. Cholesterol helps the membrane maintain a very important balancing act: it must be rigid enough to physically resist the strain placed on it by the cytoplasm it encloses, yet supple enough to accommodate the flexibility required for the movement of cells. Membrane fluidity is also of great importance in controlling the cell’s “brain” function because it impacts the membrane’s ability to read and respond to environmental information. To function normally, IMPs, in the form of receptor and effector molecules, must be able to engage one another by freely circulating within the membrane’s inner, oil-loving, hydrophobic core. It is the viscosity of the membrane’s lipid core that controls the ability of these proteins to circulate freely. A membrane made up only of phospholipid molecules would be quite fluid, so it would enhance the mobility of IMPs, but it would not be rigid enough to hold up under the pressure generated by the enclosed cytoplasm. Cholesterol is a more rigid molecule than phospholipid. So when cholesterol is inserted into the membrane, it immobilizes surrounding phospholipid molecules, creating the extra rigidity that strengthens the membrane and impedes the flow of small ions and molecules into the cell. The inserted cholesterol also creates extra space among the phospholipid molecules, space that keeps them from “gelling” so that phospholipid molecules don’t turn from an oil-like substance into a butter-like substance. So in addition to stiffening the membrane, cholesterol acts like “antifreeze” that ensures that proteins and lipids are able to move freely. (Holthuis and Menon 2014)
  • De cholesterol is oorzaak van hartfalen hypothese heeft weinig bewijs achter zich:
    Counterintuitively, the membrane’s rigid cholesterol molecules can also act to restrict IMP movement. When clusters of cholesterol molecules link up with a class of lipids called sphingolipids, they form structurally rigid “rafts” that restrict the movement of entrapped IMPs. This restriction on IMP movement offers another example of the power of banding together for the greater good. The rafts behave like “corrals” that group clusters of IMPs so they can work together to control specific cellular functions. Cholesterol rafts are the cell’s equivalent of short-term memory because the IMPs they contain represent information that engages a variety of cell behaviors. (Korade and Kenworthy 2008) These vital roles suggest that cholesterol should not be considered a feared evil villain but instead just a foot soldier doing its duty somewhere down the line of command. I was never predisposed to convicting cholesterol for causing heart disease because when I was transitioning from the laidback life of a Caribbean lecturer to the far more frenetic life of a scientist at research juggernaut Stanford, I spent time at what I describe jokingly as a research halfway house at Pennsylvania State University in the lab of Theodore M. Hollis, a gifted scientist I met when he guest-lectured at the island med school. When I was in his lab, Ted showed me samples of blood from the specialized strain of rats he used to study human atherosclerosis, the hardening and narrowing of arteries that is the leading cause of death in the United States. These animals had so much cholesterol in their systems that their blood was milky white. Despite their apparently toxic level of cholesterol, these rats did not form endothelial cell plaques typical of atherosclerotic blood vessels. The secret . . . Ted added an over-the-counter antihistamine drug (the same kind that allergy sufferers turn to regularly) when he introduced the cholesterol. Because the antihistamines could override cholesterol’s apparent role in atherosclerotic plaque formation, his work showed that the mere presence of the cholesterol was not the driving force behind a blood vessel’s malfunction.
  • Maar de oorzaak kan wel liggen bij histamine:
    Since antihistamines protected the rats, Ted’s research obviously suggested an alternative culprit: histamine. (Note: Despite my friend Ted’s exciting research on rats, I am not advocating that humans load up on antihistamines! The research is too preliminary for that, and, as you know, I think that all too often, biomedicine rushes to drug solutions without fully understanding their side effects.) Histamine is a stress-related hormone that prepares the body to deal with anticipated injuries and inflammation when the fight-or-flight response is activated by a perceived stressor. Now decades later, the role of histamine in facilitating atherosclerosis has been confirmed. In recent mice studies, the genes for histamine synthesis were experimentally “knocked out.” These genetically modified mice, unable to synthesize histamine, resisted the influence of stressors that led to inflammation and atherosclerosis in control mice. And the protective results observed in histamine-free mice were independent of serum cholesterol levels. (Wang, et al, 2011) The results of animal studies point to the role that chronic stress plays in the creation of histamine and in the onset and exacerbation of atherosclerosis and promotion of cardiovascular disease. In direct contrast to the implied role of cholesterol in causing heart disease, cardiovascular pathology may instead primarily result from environmental stressors rather than genetic or biochemical dysfunctions.
  • Maar de farmaceutische industrie ging tegen het wetenschappelijk onderzoek in en gaf de schuld aan cholesterol, want dat was goed voor de verkoop van statines:
    Though this research argues against the medical establishment’s rush to judgment against cholesterol, that rush was fueled by the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Of course, that’s because the drug companies had come up with another one of their beloved magic bullets, this time in the form of statins. Statins are a class of drugs used to lower levels of cholesterol in the blood by inhibiting a liver enzyme responsible for producing 70 percent of the body’s cholesterol. Statin drugs were originally intended for high-risk cardiac patients, but someone, likely in sales, came up with the idea that statins might be good for primary prevention to help those at risk of developing heart disease in the future as well.

    JUPITER Study, frequently referenced in support of statin use, found that during the study period, there were sixty-eight heart attacks in the placebo group and only thirty-one heart attacks in the group that took statins. So according to those numbers, statins produced an astonishing 58 percent reduction in relative risk. The results led the research group to advise that statins were effective for primary prevention of heart attacks. (Ridker 2008) On the surface those stats sound very impressive, but the suggestive conclusion was simply a manipulation of the data. It should be noted that the experimental and control study groups each had 8,901 participants. In real terms, the heart attack risk went from a very low 0.76 percent (68 out of 8,901) in the control group to 0.35 percent (31 out of 8,901) in the statin group. Statistically, the “protective” effect of statins provided for a 0.35 percent reduction over controls, which meant a real risk reduction of less than one half of one percent. The data indicate that for every 300 people taking expensive statin drugs, only one life might be saved. Follow-up studies reveal that the presumed preventive effects of cholesterol-lowering drugs have been considerably exaggerated. As a side note, AstraZeneca, makers of the statin drugs used in the study, was the source of funding for the now discredited JUPITER Study. (Dit soort studies doet denken aan de studies die aan de basis liggen van de covidvaccins, zelfde trukendoos)
    The use of statins in the primary prevention of heart disease has fueled statin sales, but it hasn’t turned the tide in the war on cardiovascular disease. In fact, as with many wars waged lately, the cost is high and the results negligible. Though statins accounted for $29 billion in U.S. sales in 2013 alone, their war against cholesterol has barely had an impact on cardiovascular diseases. At best, statin drugs lower the actual risk of heart attack by around 0.3 percent, while at the same time producing side effects in 15 percent to 40 percent of those using the drug. Recent independent studies have shown that statin use for primary prevention has minimal or no value in reducing heart attacks and mortality.
    The statin approach to treating cardiac disease is yet another expensive war with a very poor prognosis. As of yet, we haven’t found the “weapons” of mass-cardiac destruction. Instead of continuing to search, perhaps it’s time (actually, way past time) to revise the conclusion that cholesterol is culpable for cardiovascular health issues and shift our attention to environmental stressors rather than genetic or biochemical dysfunctions.
  • De oorzaak van hartfalen is wellicht overweldigend stress:
    The origin of 90 percent of cardiovascular disease is not due to an organic dysfunction in the cell’s mechanisms, but rather represents a behavioral response driven by environmental signals in the blood. The brain secretes blood-borne hormones, stress factors, and inflammatory agents in order to coordinate the function of 50 trillion cells to sustain life. This insight returns us full circle to the story of the magical mem-Brain because the cell membrane is the information processor that provides the interface between biology and our brain’s perception of the environment. A more complete understanding of cholesterol’s vital role in membrane information processing makes it apparent that disturbing cholesterol metabolism with statin drugs is tantamount to throwing yet another monkey wrench into the machine.
  • Tijd voor het verlaten van het materialistisch paradigma. We moeten zoeken naar een synthese tussen biologie en quantummechanica:
    There have, thankfully, been some visionary biologists who have advocated for the integration of Newtonian and quantum physics. More than forty years ago the renowned Nobel Prize–winning physiologist Albert Szent-Györgyi published a book called Introduction to a Submolecular Biology. (Szent-Györgyi 1960) His text was a noble effort to educate the community of life scientists about the importance of quantum physics in biological systems. Unfortunately, his traditional peers, who considered the book to be the ravings of a once brilliant but now senile old man, merely lamented the “loss” of their former colleague. Biologists in the main have still not recognized the importance of Szent-Györgyi’s book, but research suggests that sooner or later they will have to because the weight of scientific evidence is toppling the old materialist paradigm. You recall the movements of protein molecules that are the stuff of life? Scientists have tried to predict those movements using the principles of Newtonian physics, to no avail. By now, I bet you can guess why: in 2000, an article by V. Pophristic and L. Goodman in the journal Nature revealed that the laws of quantum physics, not Newtonian laws, control a molecule’s life-generating movements.
    We know that living organisms must receive and interpret environmental signals in order to stay alive. In fact, survival is directly related to the speed and efficiency of signal transfer. The speed of electromagnetic energy signals is 186,000 miles per second, while the speed of a diffusible chemical is considerably less than one centimeter per second. Energy signals are a hundred times more efficient and infinitely faster than physical chemical signaling. What kind of signaling would your trillion-celled community prefer? Do the math!
  • Chiropraktica is een goed voorbeeld van deze fusie, maar zoals gebruikelijk laat de medische sector zich van zijn slechte kant zien, het eigen belang stellend boven de volksgezondheid (what else is new):
    In 1895, D. D. Palmer created the science of chiropractic. Palmer recognized that the flow of energy through the nervous system is critical to health. He focused on the mechanics of the vertebral column, the conduit through which spinal nerves provide information to the body. He developed skills to assess and tune the flow of information by adjusting the backbone’s tensions and pressures. The medical profession became threatened by Palmer’s chiropractors as well as homeopathic healers, radioesthesiasts, and other drugless practitioners who were taking away much of their business. The Carnegie Foundation published the Flexner Report in 1910 that called for all medical practices to be based on proven science. Because physicists had not yet discovered the quantum universe, energy medicine was incomprehensible to science. Denounced by the American Medical Assocation, chiropractic and other energy-based modalities fell into disrepute. Radioesthesiasts disappeared completely.
    In the last forty years, chiropractic has made great inroads in the healing arts. In 1990, chiropractors won a lengthy court battle against the medical monopoly when the American Medical Association was found guilty of illegal attempts to destroy the profession. Since then, chiropractic has spread its sphere of influence—it is even accepted in some hospitals. And despite electrotherapy’s checkered past, neuroscientists are conducting exciting new research in the area of vibrational energy therapies.
  • Hersenen als elektrisch orgaan:
    The brain has long been recognized to be an electrical organ, which is why electroshock therapy has historically been used to treat depression. But scientists are now working on less invasive tools to treat the electric brain. A recent article in Science touted the beneficial effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which stimulates the brain with magnetic fields. (Helmuth 2001; Hallet 2000) TMS is an updated version of the same nineteenth century radioesthesia healing techniques that were once denounced by conventional medicine. New studies suggest that TMS can be a powerful therapeutic tool. If used properly, it can ease depression and alter cognition. It is clear that we need interdisciplinary research in this promising and understudied area, research that encompasses quantum physics, electrical engineering, and chemistry, as well as biology.
  • Energievelden zijn vormen van communicatie: dieren gebruiken het, sommige stammen ook, moderne mensen niet meer:
    Such research will be particularly welcomed because it is likely to result in therapies with far fewer side effects than drugs. But the research will only confirm what scientists and nonscientists already “know” but may not realize they know: all organisms, including humans, communicate and read their environment by evaluating energy fields. Because humans are so dependent on spoken and written language, we have neglected our energysensing communication system. As with any biological function, a lack of use leads to atrophy. Interestingly, aborigines still utilize this hyper-sensory capacity in their daily lives. For them there has been no “sensory” atrophy. For example, Australian aborigines can sense water buried deep beneath the sand, and Amazonian shamans communicate with the energies of their medicinal plants.
  • Ze kunnen ook een rol spelen bij de genezing van ziekten:
    At the same time, American inventor Royal Rife independently verified and advanced Burr’s hypothesis. Rife created a “beam” machine that would weaken or destroy pathogens and cancer cells by focusing specific constructive or destructive interference energy fields on their cytoplasmic chemistry. (Valone 2000) The experiments of both Burr and Rife revealed that the appearance of certain diseases, such as cancer, is preceded by a measurable change in an organism’s energy field. Most importantly, by simply altering the frequencies of the cell’s energy field, they could ameliorate these pathologic disturbances. The scientific focus on describing the “chemical” nature of living organisms led conventional materialist scientists to bury the thought-provoking findings of Burr, Rife, and many others that show that life is intimately connected to invisible energy fields.
  • Quantum mechanica en biologie: fusie mogelijk dankzij nieuwe technologie:
    Recent studies are harder to ignore because, though they demolish long-held assumptions, they also use convincing state-of-the-art technology, including advanced genetic engineering techniques, new microscopes with super-high resolution and sensitivity that provide images of living cells, and fluorescent markers that scientists can attach to proteins to clearly delineate their movements. These instruments are not only providing insight into how quantum mechanics affects everyday biology, but also are motivating researchers to better understand how biological systems use quantum mechanisms to develop new, efficient technologies for organic syntheses and energy capture (e.g., solar cells). (Arndt, et al, 2009)
  • Maar de medische industrie blijft de rol van energie mis- en ontkennen:
    Despite this groundbreaking work in quantum biophysics and thanks in part to the vast resources of the pharmaceutical industry, an entity that thrives on sales of chemical signals and abhors drug-free energy medicine, the conventional world of medicine is still essentially ignoring the role of energy in shaping biological expression. When I first wrote this chapter ten years ago I said that though the medical establishment would eventually join the quantum revolution, it would have to be “dragged, half kicking and screaming.” Sadly, they’re still kicking and screaming. In his lecture at the 2004 Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, Nobel Prize– winning University of Cambridge physicist Brian Josephson said that the scientific establishment suffers from “Pathological Disbelief,” a condition he described as “I wouldn’t believe it even if it were true.” At the beginning of the lecture, he included the following admonition: “WARNING: Readers may find some of the ideas in this lecture disturbing; they may conflict with various deeply held beliefs.” Josephson recalled how the topics of meteorites and continental drift were originally and vehemently dismissed by scientists as impossible phenomena. After a long period of time and the acquisition of abundant evidence, science finally caved and accepted the impossible as real. (Josephson 2004) Josephson has also questioned today’s negative scientific attitude about the validity of homeopathy, a more than 200-year-old alternative medicine system that is routinely dismissed by the medical establishment as quackery. The fact that homeopathy is favored by the British royal family hasn’t stopped the British Medical Association from describing it as “witchcraft.” When asked by New Scientist editors how he became an advocate of unconventional medicine, Josephson said it was when he saw French immunologist Jacques Benveniste present his research at a conference. (Benveniste published the first research article to validate homeopathy in the prestigious journal Nature.) Josephson noted that Benveniste’s presentation “provoked irrationally strong reactions from scientists.” He adds: “I was struck by how badly he was treated.” (George 2006) Another Nobel Laureate, Luc Montagnier, the French virologist who won the Prize in 2008 for discovering the AIDS virus, has studied homeopathy and lauded Benveniste as a “modern Galileo.”
  • En zo komen we bij homeopatie terecht waarvan de wetenschappelijke onderbouwing wellicht sterker is dan gedacht (of beweerd door de concurrerende gevestigde "geneeskunde"):
    Benveniste was attacked and demonized because he investigated a subject that the orthodox medical and scientific community had dismissed as a metaphysical oddity. Because homeopathy relies on highly diluted remedies, conventional scientists have disregarded those remedies out of hand, arguing that the homeopathic solutions are so dilute that they no longer contain any of the original signal molecules. In response to this critique on dilution, Montagnier told Science: “High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules.” (Enserink 2010)
    Additionally, what Josephson calls the “simple-minded assessment” that fluid water molecules cannot have a structure to maintain information is now invalid. This limited thinking does not include new insights offered by the science of liquid crystals that reveal how a flowing fluid, such as water, can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances. These new insights nullify the standard refutations of homeopathy put forward by naysayers. While Big Pharma and closed minds prevent some scientists from jumping on the quantum bandwagon, the public leads the way into the frontiers of energy medicine. A National Health Interview Survey found that 83 million American adults spent $38 billion on complementary and alternative healthcare in the twelve months before the survey was published in 2007. While there are no comparable more recent statistics, anecdotal evidence points to the public’s continuing enthusiasm for remedies outside the traditional biomedical model. (Nahin, et al, 2009) For example, the science of how transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) alters cognition, reported in the first edition of this book, is now being employed by lay audience enthusiasts who are building or buying electromagnetic field stimulators to enhance brain function. The new version of this technology, referred to as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), sends small amounts of stable electric current into the scalp. Depending on the region of the brain being stimulated, tDCS can influence neural activity that results in increasing attention, expanding memory, improving visual abilities and mathematical skills, and alleviating symptoms of depression.
  • HIV/AIDS: is ook hier de wetenschappelijke consensus fout?
    Similarly, science is unambiguous about its claim that the HIV virus causes AIDS. But it has no conception as to why large numbers of individuals that have been infected with the virus for decades do not express the disease? More baffling is the reality of terminal cancer patients who have recovered their lives through spontaneous remissions. Because such remissions are outside the bounds of conventional theory, science completely disregards the fact that they ever happened. Spontaneous remissions are dismissed as unexplainable exceptions to our current truths or, simply, misdiagnoses.
  • Financiele belangen spelen zoals altijd een rol:
    I believe the reason the mind has so summarily been dismissed in medicine is the result not only of dogmatic thinking, but also of financial considerations. If the power of your mind can heal your sick body, why should you go to the doctor and, more importantly, why would you need to buy drugs? In fact, I was recently chagrined to learn that drug companies are studying patients who respond to sugar pills with the goal of eliminating them from early clinical trials. It inevitably disturbs pharmaceutical manufacturers that in most of their clinical trials the placebos, the “fake” drugs, prove to be as effective as their engineered chemical cocktails. (Greenberg 2003) Though the drug companies insist they’re not trying to make it easier for ineffective drugs to get approved, it is clear that effectiveness of placebo pills is a threat to the pharmaceutical industry. The message from the drug companies is clear to me: if you can’t beat placebo pills fairly, simply remove the competition!
  • De kracht van de geest:
    Baylor School of Medicine study, published in 2002 in the New England Journal of Medicine, evaluated surgery for patients with severe, debilitating knee pain. (Moseley, et al, 2002) The lead author of the study, Dr. Bruce Moseley, “knew” that knee surgery helped his patients: “All good surgeons know there is no placebo effect in surgery.” But Moseley was trying to figure out which part of the surgery was giving his patients relief. The patients in the study were divided into three groups. Moseley shaved the damaged cartilage in the knee of one group. For another group, he flushed out the knee joint, removing material thought to be causing the inflammatory effect. Both of these constitute standard treatment for arthritic knees. The third group got “fake” surgery. The patient was sedated, Moseley made three standard incisions and then talked and acted just as he would have during a real surgery—he even splashed salt water to simulate the sound of the knee-washing procedure. After forty minutes, Moseley sewed up the incisions as if he had done the surgery. All three groups were prescribed the same postoperative care, which included an exercise program.
    The results were shocking. Yes, the groups who received surgery, as expected, improved. But the placebo group improved just as much as the other two groups! Despite the fact that there are 650,000 surgeries yearly for arthritic knees, at a cost of about $5,000 each, the results were clear to Moseley: “My skill as a surgeon had no benefit on these patients. The entire benefit of surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee was the placebo effect.”
    Television news programs graphically illustrated the stunning results. Footage showed members of the placebo group walking and playing basketball, in short doing things they reported they could not do before their “surgery.” The placebo patients didn’t find out for two years that they had gotten fake surgery. One member of the placebo group, Tim Perez, who had to walk with a cane before the surgery, is now able to play basketball with his grandchildren. He summed up the theme of this book when he told the Discovery Health Channel: “In this world anything is possible when you put your mind to it. I know that your mind can work miracles.” Studies have shown the placebo effect to be powerful in treating other diseases, including asthma and Parkinson’s. In the treatment of depression, placebos are stars. So much so that psychiatrist Walter Brown of the Brown University School of Medicine has proposed placebo pills as the first treatment for patients with mild or moderate depression. (Brown 1998) Patients would be told that they’re getting a remedy with no active ingredient, but that shouldn’t dampen the pills’ effectiveness. Studies suggest that even when people know they’re not getting a drug, the placebo pills still work.
  • Kracht van de geest = kracht van placebo:
    One indication of the power of the placebo came from a report from the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The report found that half of severely depressed patients taking drugs improve versus 32 percent taking a placebo. (Horgan 1999) Even that impressive showing may underestimate the power of the placebo effect: many study participants figure out they’re taking the real drug because they experience side effects that are not experienced by those taking the placebo. Once those patients realize they’re taking the drug, i.e., once they start believing that they’re getting the real pill, they are particularly more susceptible to the placebo effect. Given the power of the placebo, it is no wonder that the $8.2 billion antidepressant industry is under attack by critics who charge that drug companies are hyping the effectiveness of their pills. In a 2002 article in the American Psychological Association’s Prevention & Treatment, “The Emperor’s New Drugs,” University of Connecticut psychology professor Irving Kirsch found that 80 percent of the effect of antidepressants, as measured in clinical trials, could be attributed to the placebo effect. (Kirsch, et al, 2002) Kirsch had to invoke the Freedom of Information Act in 2001 to get information on the clinical trials of the top antidepressants: these data were not forthcoming from the Food and Drug Administration. The data show that in more than half of the clinical trials for the six leading antidepressants, the drugs did not outperform placebo, sugar pills. And Kirsch noted in a Discovery Health Channel interview that “the difference between the response of the drugs and the response of placebo was less than two points on average on this clinical scale that goes from fifty to sixty points. That’s a very small difference. That difference clinically is meaningless.”
  • Acute stress = goed, chronische stress = fout : onze samenleving = chronische stress:
    Our stress responses were designed for intermittent use such as escaping from the occasional saber-toothed tiger. The chronic nature of modern stress that occurs 24-7-365 epigenetically taxes our stress response mechanisms and leads to depression or other mood disorders. Unsurprisingly, Dr. Herbert Benson, famed Mind/Body Medical Institute Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, has concluded that stress is responsible for up to 90 percent of all doctor office visits. (Benson 1997)
  • Omgeving --> genen/ sociaal actieve mensen zijn minder ziek, hebben andere genen, en minder inflammatie:
    Cole has discovered that whole sectors of genes look markedly different in lonely people versus people who are socially secure. Of the approximately 19,000 human genes, lonely and not-lonely people showed sharply different gene expression responses in 209 genes, many of which play roles in inflammatory immune responses. He reasoned that if social stress reliably created this immune gene profile, it might explain the results of his earlier studies in which lonely HIV carriers succumbed so much faster to the disease than socially active HIV carriers.
     (Achor 2010) Now for the “good news”—and not just for the small number of people in the world who study at Harvard! Belief modification can induce rapid changes in gene activity. When individuals raise their levels of optimism and deepen their social connections (à la Steve Cole and Brittney), they not only raise their level of happiness, but also dramatically improve every single business and educational outcome tested for.
  • Meer over chronische stress:
    The HPA system is a brilliant mechanism for handling acute stresses. However, this protection system was not designed to be continuously activated. In today’s world, most of the stresses we are experiencing are not in the form of acute, concrete “threats” that we can easily identify, respond to, and move on. We are constantly besieged by multitudes of unresolvable worries about our personal lives, our jobs, and our war-torn global community. Such worries do not threaten our immediate survival, but they nevertheless can activate the HPA axis, resulting in chronically elevated stress hormones.
    We live in a “Get set” world and an increasing body of research suggests that our hyper-vigilant lifestyle is severely impacting the health of our bodies. Our daily stressors are constantly activating the HPA axis, priming our bodies for action. Unlike competitive athletes, the stresses in our bodies are not released from the pressures generated by our chronic fears and concerns. Almost every major illness that people acquire has been linked to chronic stress. (Segerstrom and Miller 2004; Kopp and Réthelyi 2004; McEwen and Lasky 2002; McEwen and Seeman 1999) Between 75 and 90 percent of primary-care physician visits have stress as a major contributing factor. (Atkinson 2000) In a revealing study published in 2003 in Science, researchers considered why patients on SSRI antidepressants, such as Prozac or Zoloft, don’t feel better right away. There is usually at least a twoweek lag between starting the drugs and the time the patients feel they are getting better. The study found that depressed people exhibit a surprising lack of cell division in the region of the brain called the hippocampus, a part of the nervous system involved with memory. Hippocampal cells renewed cell division at the time patients first began to experience the mood-shifting effect of the SSRI drugs, weeks after the onset of the drug regimen. This study and others challenge the theory that depression is simply the result of a “chemical imbalance” affecting the brain’s production of monoamine signaling chemicals, specifically serotonin. If it were as simple as that, the SSRI drugs would likely restore that chemical balance right away.
    More researchers are pointing to the inhibition of neuronal growth by stress hormones as the source of depression. In fact, in chronically depressed patients, the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex, the center of higher reasoning, are physically shrunken. A review of this study published in Science reported: “Overtaking the monoamine hypothesis in recent years has been the stress hypothesis, which posits that depression is causedwhen the brain’s stress machinery  goes into overdrive. The most prominent player in this theory is the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis.” (Holden 2003)
    Another study by University of Virginia neuroscientist James Coan assessed the role of social contact in regulating emotional responses in the face of various stressors. In Coan’s assay, he gave an electric shock to the ankles and recorded the brain activity of sixteen women in three different situations: while holding the hand of a loved one, while holding the hand of an anonymous male, and while not holding a hand at all. The stress tests registered the women’s anxiety before, and pain level during, the shocks. When not holding another person’s hands, the women’s anxiety and pain levels were elevated as expected. When holding their partner’s hand, the negative influence of the shock was significantly reduced. Holding the hand of a stranger resulted in a much more limited reduction of the stress response. Strikingly, the degree of a woman’s ability to reduce stress while holding hands with her loved one varied by the quality she attributed to her relationship: the higher a woman perceived the quality of her relationship, the lower were her scores on the anxiety and pain readings following the shock. (There was no such response variation associated with the holding of strangers’ hands.) In a healthy relationship, holding your partner’s hand is enough to lower blood pressure, ease stress responses, improve health, and diminish physical pain! (Coan, et al, 2006)
  • Deze chronische stress komt net op een moment dat de nood voor "acute" stressreactie grotendeels verdwenen is (in vergelijking met andere diersoorten):
    In addition, no matter how many National Geographic specials you’ve watched, there is no dog-eat-dog imperative for humans. We are at the top of the predator/prey food chain. Our survival is dependent on eating organisms lower in the hierarchy, but we are not subject to being eaten by organisms higher in the chain. Without natural predators, humans are spared from becoming “prey” and from all the violence that the term implies.
  • Geloof in de religieuze betekenis helpt ook (zijn wetenschappers bange wezens?):
    Dr. Harold G. Koenig, Professor of Medicine at Duke University, reviewed over 600 of these research studies and concluded that people who hold more spiritual beliefs fare significantly better in mental health and adapt more quickly to health problems than those who are less spiritual. The benefits to mental health and well-being provided by spirituality have physiological consequences that impact physical health, reduce the risk of disease, and influence the healing outcomes of treatment. Spiritual beliefs have a direct, positive influence on the activity of the immune and endocrine systems that are critical for health maintenance and disease prevention. Spiritual patients exhibit significantly better indicators of immune functions, such as higher white blood cell counts and antibody levels and experience significantly lower infection rates. They also exhibit lower levels of adrenal stress hormones, such as cortisol and epinephrine (secretions that directly repress the activity of the immune system) than nonspiritual patients. (Koenig 2012)