One more thing on the example with the heart failure. If you go to a
cardiologist with the same problem, s/he will prescribe a series of
exampinations related to your heart only (checking your blood pressure, EEG
& EMG tests incl. 24h recording and physical performance tests,  etc.).
Rarely you can expect a blood sample analysis related to some kidney or
liver failure, or a cervical examination because of a possible supply
shortage of the vertebral artery (in case you have reported accompanying
headaches) because of a grown bone spur with the first examination.
Finally, depending on all these tests you will usually obtain a pill
prescription to keep yopur blood pressure low for the rest of your life and
some advise to avoid salty and spicy food. Period. If you at some point in
time give up to find out and fix the real cause(s) for this "simple" heart
failure, it is your problem, and not the one of the physician or the
insurance company.

Now let's turn to the giraffe and the okapi and see how they have managed
to develop a strong heart with the evolution:

Thus, science can still give important clues to solving problems, incl.
what is a bonus or threat, but it is not the only source. The central issue
is the integration of knowledge and sign(al)s about the operation and
interaction of whole body systems, I think.



On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <> wrote:

> This is an interesting question, Karl. Without giving a full account, I
> think there can be said the following.
> It is usually not the (chemical) nature of a substrate or the availability
> of an external source that makes it a poison, but its ratio.
> Small amounts are harmless, larger amounts are dangerous. But there is no
> general recipe to detect harms.
> If you stay for 15 minutes on the sun (UV light) this will stimulate the
> production of vitamin D in your body which in turn will stimulate the
> strengthening of your bones. But if you stay longer, there is a danger of a
> sunstroke or melanoma. Our brains simply do not obtain all these alarming
> signals from damaging the (skin) cells to the production and cumulation of
> toxic substances. We have specific organs to sense color, smell and taste,
> but not radiation.
> The problem with contemporary (allopathic) medicine is that it is
> basically symptomatic and the diagnosis is usually reductionistic,
> detecting one source of damage related to the failed organ (heart, kidney,
> liver, etc.) associated with the ailment; so is the therapy, until a second
> or a third failure are detected and medicated sequentially and
> independently from each other. Yet, in most cases, the failures are
> occurring at the same time in multiple organs and systems, but we do not
> have the information about that to act, or the information comes too late
> and on an isolated place, covering the other alarm signals under the
> threshold of detection by the organism.
> However, if you go to a TCM practitioner with the complaint of e.g. heart
> palpitations as a symptom of restlessness after examining your pulse and
> tongue, you will obtain three medications (herbs): one for lowering the
> blood pressure, one for detoxifying the kidneys and one for detoxifying the
> liver. In addition to that you may become an acupuncture session for
> regulating the “qi/chi flow" inside the body - a substance which is a
> complete mystery for science - and a prescription of what to eat and how to
> sleep.
> So, decrypting the body sign(al)s in their multiplicity as result of the
> interaction of systems and organs is the clue. Regarding human bodies as
> licked buckets that need to be repaired from multiple punches is probably a
> good metaphor.
> Best,
> Plamen
> ____________________________________________________________
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Karl Javorszky <
> > wrote:
>> Just a small detail on the information density of food (air, water,
>> sensory input, etc.) in medicine:
>> The DNA has a high informational value for the organism. Can it be said
>> that poison has also an informational value?
>> Can the de-constructive effect of a substance quantified based on the
>> same semiotic system of references as the constructive effect of a
>> substance can be referred to in that same system of references?
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to