Proving Good Nutrition vs Drug Trials

Proving Good Nutrition

Max Stanley Chartrand, Ph.D.
(Behavioral Medicine)

For years it has amazed me when otherwise intelligent people will criticize the concepts taught here. First, my guess is that these concepts are interrupting someone's gravy train--there is certainly no danger or high-cost involved in trying what is recommended, but could mean huge losses to those who have a vested interest in an unwell population! The burden of proof is not on this author or any other author who espouses the gentle, no-risk strategies of healing. Uncountable individuals who have tried these principles and who have overcome their DMII and other chronic disease are the proof.

But, ah, they want the kind of big-dollar proof that Big Pharma must show on their potentially very dangerous drugs--the kind of drugs that rarely heal and are so laden with side/interaction/withdrawal effects as to speed hundreds of thousands of people to early death---the kind that are so caught up in myriad million dollar lawsuits, out of court settlements, and trialed for merely 4-8 weeks, but never tested or designed for long-term use, the kind with effects in which the body becomes insensitive and requires ever larger doses to have any positive effect, or the kind that wear out the liver, the kidneys, the adrenals, the pancreas, the heart, the muscles, and deplete the bones of calcium as they plunge the body into low pH!

No, the burden of proof is on the critics. They can spend the $800 million dollars on each recommended nutrient to see if it works. But, of course, they wouldn't do that.... They know that if the trials were unbiased and designed to show long-term results, that ailing individuals would become healthier. They know that if they required trial participants to stop microwaving, stop smoking, stop caffeine, refrain from alcohol, eat non-irradiated, non-degermed, low-pasteurized whole foods that people would get well--and stay well! They would also feel like exercising! Cancer would be rare, pervasive diabetes type 2 would become history. Babies would be born with fewer birth defects, autism (and other developmental assaults) would become almost non-existent, special education in the schools would go back to where it was in the 1960s. But, of course, they can't have that. What would they do for a living? What would happen to the largest and fastest growing industry in the world? What would happen if all those kids soared in academic and life preparation, people lived longer, no longer warehoused in old age and kept alive artificially!

With the continual encroachment of unconstitutional federal government involvement, about one-fifth of the total U.S. economy (about one dollar of every five) is expended on its erstwhile healthcare system. Most of this expenditure is for keeping people from healing and inoculating the public mind from doing what it takes to get healthy by ridiculing the healing modalities. Hence, the caravan moves on. The politicians decry the cost of this monstrous, growing unhealthy scam by calling for...more of the same! Under the ObamaCare plan, and Hillary-Care before it and Play or Pay, before that, the computer models all show the same results: Destruction of private health care and innovation, total government (read political) control over healthcare, and the disappearance of a budding Complementary-Alternative Medicine (CAM) industry. By the time ObamaCare is fully instituted (and more than one-third of the nations hospital are out of business and about a quarter of the physicians opting out for early retirement), the cost of healthcare will zoom upwards to 24% (or one dollar out of four) of the economy!

There is a better way. Think what would happen if a trillion otherwise wasted dollars were infused into the economy! Those displaced because people get well (that would take quite a while, incidentally) can go to work finding better ways to live and be healthy, improve the food quality, and provide true wellness counseling. Drug addictions are hard to break, though, whether the drug is tobaccos, marijuana, cocaine, sleeping pills, pain killers, ritalin, or opiates!). Legitimate health follies will always exist on Mortal Earth. No way around that--but at least we can put more real research and innovation into healing and relieving suffering!
Viruses will still evolve (but mostly from nations where health systems and environmental hygiene fall far short of the knowledge base). Accidents will happen, people will age, scheming men will plant drugs in the food and drinks to hook people on their products as they always have. Fools and the unsuspecting will buy and ingest their Trojan Horses of early death.

Type As will still be prone to overwork. Type Bs will still be prone to underwork. Type ABs will do both. So, the challenges will still be there. For once, can those of us in the healing and helping professions be honest about it all? Can we put vested interests aside, and design objective, long-term studies, and publish forthrightly on the side/interaction/withdrawal effects of recommended substances? Can we speak on levels of risk in a way that the consumer understands there are mild risks with misuse of natural substances--but still risks if not used intelligently--and severe risks with misuse of narcotics and other powerful, bullying drugs? Afterall, drug dealers are not breaking into health food stores. People are not dialing 911 for overdose on supplements. Can we be adults and tell them the truth?