Health: from beyond 19th century reductionism to 21st century science

One of the priorities that people may focus on occasionally is health. Certainly, there are times when someone will knowingly compromise or sacrifice their health (in large or small ways) in the service of some other priority (such as firefighters entering a burning building or a squad of elite infantry soldiers engaging in an attempt to go in to hostile territory to find a particular individual, such as a captured comrade or an enemy spy, and bring that individual back with them).

But relative to most other possible priorities, health is one of the most dominant. Some institutions, like empires, like to glorify the soldier who sacrifices safety and health (glorifying such “heroism” through mass media and public schools and so on). However, that is because institutions want to promote the health of the institution (which may require the frequent risking of many lives).

What actually promotes health? Obviously, physical safety promotes health in the general sense of avoiding dangers and extreme threats. But in the more everyday sense of promoting health, what actions promote health (and which compromise health)?

I used a simple question to create a spectrum of priorities within the realm of health. That question is “how long does it take to die from an absence of each factor?”

Many people who study health begin with eating because eating involves so much conscious attention. Further, public school systems indoctrinate the masses that eating is uniquely important.

However, other than as it relates to poisons (including food poisoning), eating is actually the least urgent of the factors that I consider. Since poisons can also be delivered by insect bites (like from a scorpion), the issue of poisons is distinct from eating.

How long does it take to die from no eating?

In the extreme case of mammals who hibernate, we know that many healthy creatures can easily go 3 months without eating. In other conditions, it is possible to die of starvation in a number of weeks. However, in contrast to something like breathing, frequent nutrition seems rather unimportant (especially given that nutrients can be accumulated and stored for long periods of time).

How long does it take to die from no breathing?

The current world record for intentionally holding the breath is over 17 minutes. However, most brain researchers suggest that no breathing for more than 10 minutes can easily produce death or at least permanent brain damage. Some divers hold their breath underwater for well over 3 minutes as a matter of common practice- usually without any reported problems.

I even know of a case in which a human fell in to freezing water and experienced a complete cessation of metabolic activity (medical death) for a much longer period than 17 minutes, but still fully recovered with no brain damage. However, the only reason that the person was able to be revived was because of the sudden exposure to freezing temperatures, which actually preserved the vitality of the brain tissue and of other vital organs.

Which is more important to health: breathing or nutrition?

So, we know without any controversy that breathing is far more vital (essential) than nutrition. The fact that many institutions focus so much on diet and so little on breathing may reveal the actual interests of those organizations.

We also notice that by using conceptual models based on 19th century biochemistry, mainstream physicians focus on factors such as diet, nutritional supplementation, and medication (typically, combinations of synthetic chemicals). That is what they know. The results they can produce are limited by their methods and their paradigm. The frequent use of the speculative term “incurable” is due to their lack of comprehension of physiology in general (and, in particular, lack of competence in regard to treating a specific medical condition).

If we were to ask mainstream physicians today about how different patterns of breathing influence brain function, most of them would be completely unfamiliar with the subject. Likewise, they may be totally ignorant of how very simple breathing exercises can be used to dramatically alter health (to efficiently improve it). However, they may know the entire list of risks and side-effects associated with the most lucrative medical drugs that they push on their prospective addicts.

I digress. This is not even really about breathing exercises as a better method of treatment than making conservative dietary changes or using the latest experimental medications which block symptoms by interfering with the function of the immune system. I am primarily just setting up a contrast in regard to a hierarchy of importance.

Is anything even more important than breathing?
How long does it take for someone to die from a lightning strike? From electrocution by high voltages in a cold-blooded ritual of human sacrifice? From a nuclear explosion that bombards an organism with neutrons?

There are many ways to die that take much less time than several minutes. A total absence of oxygen to the brain is not an important issue if the brain is not functioning for other reasons, such as being fried to a crisp or even liquified.

Which is more important to health: breathing or electromagnetism?

One way that breathing is important is that inhalation can provide oxygen to the bloodstream and thus to the cells of all tissues and organs, including the brain. But why is oxygen so important?

The oxygen that we breathe (O2) is used in many metabolic processes (relating to the storage of energy as well as the release of energy). When something is burnt, that is called combustion. Combustion is one type of oxidation. Oxidation is essential to life because oxidation (a biochemical bonding of oxygen with something else) is involved in so many essential processes.

When people speak of anti-oxidants, that refers to substances that reverse oxidation (not prevent it). In particular, anti-oxidants have a single electron that is weakly bonded to the rest of the anti-oxidant. That electron can easily be magnetically pulled from the anti-oxidant to some other molecule that is so strongly attracted magnetically to that electron that the electron is ripped away from the anti-oxidant.

The term “inflammation” refers to the condition of a tissue that has reached an unusual extreme of electromagnetic charge. The inflammation can be due to exterior sources, such as a sunburn from sunlight or a burn from a flame or a burn from strong acids in contact with skin tissue (or even a lightning strike that “fries” an organism). The internal sources of inflammation ultimately boil down to the same issue: the balance of available electrons to available protons within a tissue.

That electromagnetic balance can be measured as voltage or as pH, which stands for potential hydrogen (because each hydrogen atom has such a highly available electron). While most mainstream physicians are learning how to spell long and cryptic pharmaceutical concoctions, biophysicists know that voltage and pH are like fahrenheit and celsius: just two different scales for measuring the same issue.

Physicists also understand that electromagnetic charge is the foundation of heat (and temperature). Why can you burn something with a high-voltage current (as long as oxygen is present)? Because combustion is a type of oxidation and all oxidation is an electromagnetic process.

Burns are all electromagnetic, whether from a flame or an acid. Flames are clusters of electromagnetic extremes in which huge concentrations of protons (AKA acidic pH or high positive voltage) will electromagnetically rip hydrogen from other molecules (such as skin cells) and oxidate that hydrogen to form H2O (as in steam AKA burning water). Note that the temperatures (electromagnetic extremes) of steam can also easily produce burns on skin tissue or any other living tissue, such as the flower of a plant.


Holism vs. reductionism

While physics is “inherently” a holistic discipline, with multiple scales for measuring the same phenomenon, modern physicians are grounded in conceptual models (and linguistic constructions) that are rooted in 19th century biochemistry and the out-dated physics that was popular at that time.

That means they use models that were made prior to the discovery of quantum physics or relativity or nuclear physics. In other words, they ignore huge amounts of well-established science in favor of preserving old conceptual models.

Why do physicians talk about carbon (C)as if it is an isolated reality from nitrogen (N) or oxygen (O)? Because they fundamentally misunderstand the phenomenon that is labeled “carbon.”

They relate to carbon as a primary unit rather than as a relatively stable compound or a temporary state. They attempt to “reduce” life to a set of about 100 fundamental elements and then ignore the common nature of those elements.

When a proton is added to a carbon atom (which has 6 protons), then the atom now has 7 protons, which is labeled nitrogen. If another proton is added to the 7, that energetic state (a cluster of 8 protons) is labeled oxygen.

That is called “nuclear fusion.” See the chart below.

So, carbon and nitrogen and oxygen are not 3 different fundamental realities. They are 3 distinct stable states of concentrated energy.

Furthermore, matter is not isolated from energy. Matter is a stable concentration of energy.

Matter does not release energy. Matter is fundamentally energetic and an energetic compound (labeled “matter”) can decay from a less stable concentration of energy in to more stable forms (as in “releasing energy”).

In the image above, there are three different subcategories of nitrogen (with weights of 13, 14 , and 15). What common factor is there among those three distinct sub-states that people can label as nitrogen? They all have 7 protons in the cluster of the atomic nucleus.

What are protons? They are one type of a concentration of electromagnetic energy.

Mass (and weight) are energetic properties, not material properties. There is no matter except for relatively stable concentrations of energy.

That is what matter is: a label for particular states of energy. For instance, solid matter (such as rigid crystals) is one very stable form of energetic compound. Plasma (liquid crystal) is the next phase or state or density, such as a semi-solid gel (like yogurt). Beyond that is liquid. Beyond liquid is a very dispersed “concentration” (lowest density) called gas: the material state of a gaseous form of energetic compounds.

So, fundamentally, carbon and nitrogen and oxygen are 3 categories of stable electromagnetic compounds. When nitrogen “decays” in to carbon and helium (the red compound at the top of the image above), what happens to the nitrogen?

It “splits.” We could even say that it disappears or ceases to continue.

Again, nitrogen is not a fundamental unit. It is a (relatively) stable electromagnetic compound which, when bombarded with a proton, can split in to two smaller and more stable compounds: carbon and helium.

How important is that example?

The specifics of that example are not of much practical importance. However, from a scientific perspective of physics, we can see that the conceptual model of elemental biochemistry is “primitive” or “imprecise” or even “unscientific” (depending on how attentive someone is to their use of language).

In mainstream medicine in recent decades, a massive hysteria about cholesterol and fat has been conceived and promoted by certain institutions. To a physicist, such hysteria may instantly be categorized as “delirium” or “delusion” or “quackery.”

Here, I will not get in to the history of the funding of anti-fat research (or anti-cholesterol research) and why that research was so lucrative for certain commercial interests. I will simply say that scientific facts can be directly observed and thus do not require the endorsement or protection of any institution.
Where does nutrition fit in to all of this?

Everything that you have seen here so far was in fact simply a preparation for the following. I was setting up a context for a comment about nutrition.

Some people who are still confused by the propaganda of public schools will fixate on nutrition and even on particular isolated nutrients. “How much magnesium should I have? How much selenium? How much iodine?”

These are understandable inquiries. With the logical foundation of reductionist medical hysterias, those questions are all but inevitable.

In fact, they are even useful inquiries. However, let us be cautious about thinking only in terms of elemental chemistry. Let us recall that organisms are complex systems involving electromagnetic energy as well as clusters of highly-specialized cells (“organs”).

So, when people say “magnesium,” do they mean the element magnesium specifically or any one of the common compounds that contain some form of the element (the stable concentration of energy) that fits the linguistic category of “magnesium?”

The table below is presented for reference only and is taken from:

Magnesium glycinate is a chelated form of magnesium that tends to provide the highest levels of absorption and bioavailability and is typically considered ideal for those who are trying to correct a deficiency Magnesium oxide is a non-chelated type of magnesium, bound to an organic acid or a fatty acid. Contains 60 percent magnesium and has stool softening properties
Magnesium chloride / Magnesium lactate contain only 12 percent magnesium, but has better absorption than others, such as magnesium oxide, which contains five times more magnesium Magnesium sulfate / Magnesium hydroxide (milk of magnesia) are typically used as a laxative. Be aware that it’s easy to overdose on these, so ONLY take as directed
Magnesium carbonate, which has antacid properties, contains 45 percent magnesium Magnesium taurate contains a combination of magnesium and taurine, an amino acid. Together, they tend to provide a calming effect on your body and mind
Magnesium citrate is magnesium with citric acid, which has laxative properties Magnesium threonate is a newer, emerging type of magnesium supplement that appears promising, primarily due to its superior ability to penetrate the mitochondrial membrane


Magnesium is one type of “electrolyte” (any element that is considered extremely important to the biology of energy, as in the storage of electromagnetic charge, and especially the release or activation of electromagnetic charge). Calcium is another electrolyte.

So, when people ask “how much magnesium should I have,” they may be operating from a reductionist model. They ignore all other factors and ask for “the right amount of magnesium” (perhaps even without considering their weight, whether they are pregnant or not, etc).

There is a problem with that kind of thinking. When there is too much magnesium relative to other things, that is a problem. When there is not enough relative to other things, that can also be quite a serious problem.

The simple reality is that a combination of nutrients is required for optimal health. In the absence of addressing other possible deficiencies, adding only magnesium can produce effects like a sudden and complete emptying of the bowels (such as diarrhea). “Milk of magnesia” is in fact a famous remedy for constipation.

However, the same dosage of that common constipation remedy will not have identical effects for everyone who takes it. Why? Because some people lack the other nutrients that allow for “milk of magnesia” to be efficiently used.

If you want to promote health, are you willing to discard (refine) any conceptual models of reductionism that you may be operating from? A holistic approach implies that you are willing to change anything and everything. If you are only willing to change one isolated factor at a time, then consider that health is actually not your priority at this time.

Perhaps a higher priority may on occasion be the preserving of a particular social persona or self-image. That is entirely reasonable. However, that may have very little to do with efficiently promoting health.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: