Now are you accusing the foundation itself to be flawed? In fact, if I could, I would make this book a compulsory subject for all school students! It’s not that if we apply the latest, cutting edge physical laws, then automatically all the S. So, if you really have some ‘new evidence base for health and illness’ then please put them forward for peer review. This is no different from the concept of the “Ancient Wisdom” (this term itself is a fallacy- something ancient need not necessarily be wise) involving the “phlegms”, “biles”, “imbalances” and various other fanciful words. Let’s say someone is willing to sponsor a regular health checkup, will you suggest to decline it? That is a statement that is condescendingly nonsensical. NOT getting a regular health checkup is definitely more dangerous than getting one regularly. Just imagine yourself with a tumor or a brain aneurysm waiting to burst! And, I wonder how we can know if someone is healthy or not, without taking recourse to some scientific method?
I agree that the “Big, Evil” Pharma companies might indulge in these kinds of shady activities. But when a Professor like you doesn’t understand it, how can we expect the general crowd to? You have merely rehashed those ancient concepts of biles and phlegms into a new-age version of “communication and sync between molecules”. if you can back it up with evidence and how it can be falsified, then it will be useful. Even though both Claude Bernard and Louis Pasteur did note that the “terrain is more important than the seed” we have gone the whole hog on the seed, risk factors, and what have you. M.s (including Ayurveda) might talk about “strengthening the immune system” but what do they offer? If there is a way these ancient systems can help then it is by pointing out these “simple methods” that the ancient systems may have found out by trial and error, so that science can analyze it scientifically, identify the exact component of the concoction that is effective in alleviating the symptoms, the therapeutic characteristics, the adverse effects, ceiling dose, antidote in case of over dosage, and any safer alternative for the effective individual component including a synthetic form. The common man will have the doubt as to how he/she could know about health.
Doesn’t that mean that most molecular biology studies are prototype and try to find out how what is known fits into their study? Haven’t you heard of drugs being recalled, for example?
There is a regulatory body, and perhaps there may be evil, corrupt individuals in those. It still gives fairly good understanding for all basic purposes. (journalofcosmology.com/Quantum Consciousness106.html) Human molecules communicate with one another which can now be documented through the photon lights emitted from each DNA. Notions of “quantum consciousness” have been debunked. “Human molecules communicate with one another which can now be documented through the photon lights emitted from each DNA.” What?! Then what about the molecules in an inanimate object? You are credulous to the core, and I hope you learn some critical thinking skills. All the progress everywhere is exactly because of this. A new evidence base that you are advocating is indeed worthwhile.
I would like to point out once again that SCIENCE IS SELF-CORRECTING. Recently, I had a message from one of my students, who is a leading dermatologist in India doing innovative research.
I hope you are aware and have not forgotten about the field called “Preventive & Social Medicine”. It’s easy to say such things, but what is their understanding of the immune system? Do you have any literature of the so called “Ancient Wisdom” that actually explains the immune system of the body and methods to strengthen it? One of the ancient exercises could be the most potent modern medicine, a daily walk if one is not a physical labourer. How do you think do we know these things confidently unless we apply the methods of science?
(Zukel, Paul and Schnaper, 1981).” In other words, they found that changing the “risk factors” does not apparently change the risks.
This necessarily means that the “risk factors” are not as important as was thought.
If that were so, this one from Voltaire would take the cake: “The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease.” Again, just imagine what was the level of advancement of “medicine” during Voltaire’s times, viz. Even assuming it is built on loose sand, that doesn’t mean you start questioning its basic principles.
Our endeavour must be to strengthen the foundation, to tighten that “loose sand”.