Finding Truth in a Confused World

We all have learned the model of our solar system, with the sun at the center and the planets revolving around it. That model is correct, right? How do we know? We know it is correct the same way that we know anything that we can’t observe directly: it fits all the evidence, and the evidence is overwhelming. The chances of it being wrong are essentially zero.

But this model of the solar system is relatively recent. For most of our history, the model was the “Earth-centered model”, where all the planets, and the sun itself, revolved around the Earth. This model was put forth by the Greek philosopher Aristotle over 2000 years ago. It worked for a while, but planets were observed to sometimes speed up, slow down, or change direction, which the model didn’t predict. They called this “retrograde motion.” Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria modified the model by adding “epicycles”, where the planets move around little circles, the locus of which then orbit the Earth. This worked for over 1500 years, accurately predicting the visible motion of the planets in the night sky.

This new model was rather unwieldy and complex. Yet the fact that it worked well fit all the requirements of a model, and was thus accepted as truth. When telescopes brought in more evidence which the model could not explain, doubt was cast for the first time. Eventually the model crumbled, even though it stayed popular for years because it was accepted truth. It took time for the lay person to give it up because they were not on the forefront of the new research, and the model appeared to be working from their viewpoint.

Whenever there is a shake-up in accepted truth, emotions flare, and there is difficulty accepting the change. For our ancestors, change came slowly enough that this process was gradual. But today, information is doubling about every four years. Theories and models are changing almost as fast as they are formed. Once a theory hits the mainstream, it becomes popular belief even when scientists have moved on to a different theory. The average person can’t keep pace with all the scientific literature and findings. This results in myths that were once thought true but now don’t fit the evidence. This is totally understandable, since the average person does not have the ability or time to review the research, even though the Internet has made it readily available.

To cloud matters further, the conclusions that researchers draw from studies can be erroneous or misleading. The early astronomers drew the wrong conclusions from what they saw in the sky. When modern studies are released to the public, they will include conclusions drawn by the researchers, but those conclusions could be colored by their previous training.  Here’s an interesting example: published in Cell, researchers from the University of California – Los Angeles determined from their study that serotonin helps the immune system fight cancer. They studied the effects of SSRIs (serotonin re-uptake inhibitors) on patients with cancer. “It turns out SSRIs don’t just make our brains happier; they also make our T cells happier — even while they’re fighting tumors,” said the lead researcher. Their study indicates that the mere presence of more serotonin makes the immune system more effective in fighting cancer cells. That is one possible way to interpret their results; however, their raw data only showed that a drug that inhibits the removal or breakdown of serotonin caused the killer cells to kill more cancer cells in the body. Did the serotonin have that effect directly upon the immune system cells? Another possibility would also explain the effects of these drugs: they caused the brains of the patients to be happier, less stressed, which then signaled to the rest of their bodies more positive (or less negative) signals that the immune cells received. If the patients were chronically stressed, as many of us are, their immune systems would have been depressed because of the brain signaling, and the SSRIs would have suppressed that signaling because of their effects on the brain.

So if you are a researcher who believes that the cells of a body act more independently, you draw the first conclusion. If you take the holistic approach and consider the body as a complex, coordinated, integrated unit, you would take the latter viewpoint. So what are you, a regular person who isn’t studying the research articles, to think? This isn’t a trivial point: drugs have downsides, and if your brain is sending stress signals throughout your body and you can change that without drugs, wouldn’t you prefer that option? Since bias is unavoidable for us humans, including researchers, let’s apply a principle that simply doesn’t fail: the body is an integrated whole, and working with the body naturally is the overall healthiest option. Drugs are tremendous promoters of cancer as they have varying degrees of toxicity, putting normal cells under stress and not infrequently triggering the transition of cells to a cancerous state.

So, let’s look at more research. SSRIs are linked to cancer in many studies. Here’s just one: a  published in Cancer Research Communications is a review of other studies conducted by researchers from the University of Central Florida, Orlando.  Here’s their conclusion: “In this meta-analysis of 11 observational studies, we found evidence of a statistically significant association between the use of certain ADs (antidepressants) and lung cancer risk.” That’s not good news for those taking SSRI drugs. In fact, if you do an AI search to see if SSRIs promote or inhibit cancer, you will see conclusions from “linked to increased cancer risk” to “protects against cancer.” Now you get to take your pick — which is it?

You might think that the studies are contradictory, and you may as well flip a coin. But consider again the holistic view: the body is a whole. Further, the supreme commander of the body is the brain. So the studies that show that SSRIs are helpful because they increase serotonin levels that are having an effect on the brain, which then signals the body in a healthful way; at the same time, these drugs are toxic and put physical toxic stress on the body. That could mean that all the studies had valid results. Their conclusions could have been myopic, however, especially since scientists find it much easier to study individual components rather than the whole complex machine at once.

Astronomers in ancient history tried to get their models right, but they were human like the rest of us. They saw what appeared to be all the heavenly bodies moving around the Earth. They had a certain worldview and made a working model that reflected that worldview. Since it appeared to work, that confirmed their belief that they had found the truth. But as more information came in, they had to make their model more and more complex until it finally broke. We are in a similar position today when it comes to medical science. We have many drugs available to treat most any condition, and they appear to work in many cases, so long as we don’t look too deeply at the damage of the secondary drug effects. One drug whacks down cholesterol, but when blood pressure rises, the patient gets a second drug.  Then a third, then a fourth. Each declares victory over one problem while taking the overall patient’s health downward.  Eventually, they can’t take enough drugs to stay alive, so they “die of old age” because the medical community won’t place blame on drug toxicity or the damage caused by skewing patients’ metabolisms.

These drugs do the narrow job they were designed for, so patients think that their lives have been extended thanks to the drugs, all the while they are developing more chronic conditions. Sometimes the drugs appear to be truly lifesaving, perhaps thinning the blood to avoid strokes or heart attacks. That makes it hard to challenge the success. But if we zoom our focus outward, we see that the patients had lifestyle issues that led up to the drugs stepping in to avoid a deadly event.  At that point it could be argued that the drug was the patient’s only option at that moment because disaster was imminent. But even then, beginning a lifestyle overhaul could allow the patient to wean off the drugs and return to a healthy lifestyle, avoiding future drug dependence. So long as it is done safely, lifestyle changes can only be beneficial. For someone who needs exercise, suddenly trying to exercise at athletic levels might be deadly, but easing into a real exercise program as health allows can only help. Also, everyone needs enough quality sleep. Plus, there is so much room for dietary improvement for most Americans: a raw, plant-based, alkaline-promoting diet has no downside if done right. Certainly, there is no downside to removing as many environmental toxins and stressors as possible. But above all is what you do for your brain.

Consider the holistic approach. It makes many pieces of the puzzle of health fit into place. Added to modern research, it can extend your lifespan and health span a lot. But the brain, driven by your mind, is at the top of the list. What puts your mind and brain into a lower state of stress day after day will make the greatest impact on your health. This may appear to be a tall order, because much of stress is subconscious. But it is what is most needed. That’s where modern therapy techniques can make a big difference.

Dr. Nemec’s Review