CircleofHealth

The third issue is that material science has not been well able to accurately capture, measure, and describe the subjective phenomenon of experience. Any form of subjective phenomena that cannot be measured quantitatively is considered to fall beyond the pale-- and more absurdly, considered as not to exist apart from subjective measure of wellbeing studies done in psychology.

Yet we all know that it does from our own personal experience. Feelings of being alive, of love etc etc all fall within this domain-- and in fact, are among the most precious phenomena of being human, being alive...

This is the faultline of these types of discussions.

For example, in the Stanford Prison Experiment, discussed in the Lucifer Effect, social forces, ie. group expectations impacted individual behavior. In the same way, it might be wise to consider the group expectations of scientific inquiry itself, ie. what we define as relevant and look for pre-defines both what we find, and what we exclude from our research models. posted 06/12/2008 at 11:10:24

Great blog, Deepak-- I notice that when the word faith is used, it evokes several typical responses with people so triggered that they can't hear the point made.

First is the assumption that you support exclusionary religions that have caused great divisiveness and harm. Having heard you speak on many occasions and read your books, I know that you're not a proponent of such religions. But people are unable to distinguish the pervasive phenomena you describe from their experiences of the harm caused by such religions. There are universal phenomena these religions attempt ineffectively to capture. SO you are pointing at those phenomena, and initiating a grounded discussion about them.

The second issue is that many people have been conditioned by their education and group loyalties to believe that the only thing that we can characterize as "real" is something that can be measured and quantified via material phenomena. The current research models are outstanding for what they measure-- but what about what they are not able to measure? What about the outlying stuff?

I write on science, and I am fascinated by it. I am privileged to work with leading scientists. And from this direct experience of brilliant minds of science, I am not aware of any claims that science has figured everything out. From my understanding, there are still many frontiers yet to explore. In fact, that open-ness and sense of inquiry for which we value science dictates that sense of inquiry. posted 06/12/2008 at 10:41:04

Dear JP: I so resonate with what you write-- and I feel that people who feel the way we do need to find ways to take action. You're probably doing that already-- making contributions, putting the pressure on those who are accountable-- we all need to do those kinds of things-- boycotts-- why not?

BTW: I was the Conference, and if you look at the O'R piece on it, it is such a distortion and so manipulative. I mean he studiously avoids showing the senior journalists who were there and concentrates instead on a panel presenter because he has an Afro and might scare racist people. He calls people crazy because they disagree with him. I never watch O'R but his coverage of an event I attended was so revelatory.

The point was not the conference-- the point was hate and fear mongering-- to make racist voters fear an Obama Presidency. These people are very strategic and we have to be also.

My final point is that not only does Moyers have precedence because he'd been the first to invite O'R to appear on his show-- but he also has seniority as a journalist. Moyers was insisting on the rules of journalism. But these people don't respect elders, wisdom, precedence or any form of law other than the greed of the jungle. ANd that is why they need to be made accountable by the law. posted 06/10/2008 at 19:07:18

If only this FOX producer had the brains to realize that he has been given the opportunity of a lifetime-- invited by Bill Moyers himself-- the dean of American journalists -- to renounce being a whore and become a real journalist. If anywhere in Porter there is an ounce of integrity, a millimeter of brain tissue that hasn't been brainwashed by his puppet maskers-- he could be having some sleepness nights wondering if he has the courage to stand up and be the inside-outer-- the Scott McClellan of FOX News. Otherwise, he can scurry back into the rat hole and gnarl on scraps with the other rats. posted 06/09/2008 at 15:18:23

Thank you for filling me in.

But further, even if your children were not vaccinated, why would your freedom to make that choice create any kind of health problem for anyone else?

And why shouldn't people consider that kind of choice when so many people went through the childhood illnesses with no problem?

I can well understand that doctors and companies would lose money if many made those choices. If they were more concerned about their bottom lines (or looking bad) than the children in their care, I suppose they can't admit they made a mistake.

But why would other parents care? Or are the people writing here to shower hostile comments on families who are suffering really other parents?

The only scenario that comes to mind is that if vaccinating weakened (rather than strengthened) non-autistic children to the given virus or disease, then exposure to it would carry greater risk. So if that were so, that would make sense.

But since the whole purpose is supposedly to prepare the body to react to the bug instead of getting the illness full blown, then I don't see why anyone would care or think it their business if someone else made a different choice.

Are people intellectually offended by some unexplained scientific evidence that does not fit their paradigm? What's the threat here-- we are not talking about creationism. posted 04/03/2008 at 08:34:10

There's something about the autism debate here that I just don't understand. Since there is now a much higher incidence of autism in children than ever before, why wouldn't the government policy be to either make the shots elective, give them later, or do something to protect or identify those who might be injured? If children are being injured, wouldn't that be the primary concern?

And also why is there such a hysteria against parents who report a problem? Why would other adults become angry at them rather than empathizing with their concern for their children? Or the terrible suffering and burden imposed upon families? What's wrong with this country that people who are already suffering this harm should be further subjected to the indignity of being ridiculed and characterized as crazy?

Why are people frightened into believing that children are somehow in danger if they are not vaccinated? For centuries people had these diseases and probably had stronger immune systems than most of us have today. I personally had measles, chicken pox, rubella; my husbands had chicken pox, measles, and mumps. I mean we're not talking about the bubonic plague here. posted 04/02/2008 at 21:11:26

Going to the hospital is no guarantee of safety-- far from it. It's walking into a minefield of rampant infection. When people mistakenly assume that the health care system can fix whatever is wrong with them, rather than empowering themselves and doing everything possible to maintain health to avoid entering that zone, then they are making a big mistake. posted 03/24/2008 at 19:18:51

The key thing is to stay out of a hospital and avoid medications as much as possible by taking proactive health care in advance of any problem. By the time you find yourself in the hospital, the likelihood is that you are already in a disease state. By then it's going to be a lot harder to avoid getting on that medical ride and going wherever it takes you.

Healthy people can take measures to maintain health rather than waiting for symptoms to appear. We've been taught to expect rapid, intense interventions that over-ride the body's healing mechanisms. But gentler, lower cost, natural products, herbs, and soft touch mind-body treatments and life style practices can strengthen the immune system and help the body stay healthy more easily.

At the same time, we have to recognize that we live in a society where we are exposed to infectious agents, hormones, metals and chemicals in the environment, in foods and agriculture and in drugs and vaccines-- and now in water. In effect, we are all taking part in one giant experiment called "how much of this can one body take?" No one really knows the answer.

That's why I also recommend advanced integrative diagnostics and therapies that test levels of key bodily parameters in hormones, brain neurotransmitters, inflammatory markers-- and balance levels using natural substances. This is particularly important as a mid-life tune-up.

Finally, addressing repeating life-limiting patterns is vital, because such patterns, which many of us learned growing up will block us from optimizing health and self-actualizing.

I also think that one of the biggest mistakes made in health care is treating it as an individual matter. Our collective decisions create the health care and the environmental exposures we get-- and I encourage people to join with others to help co-create the broad options in health care that are truly beneficial-- as well as societal decision making that truly assesses potential health impacts, Those interested in that can join the Better Health Campaign at www.health-journalist.com posted 03/22/2008 at 20:01:14

Yes-- to a science section. I too am a HuffPo blogger (on health) and your detailing of the other blogs taking up real estate on Living really made me laugh and captured the experience of addressing something of real import. Today for example, just as you pose this question, Candy Spelling is being slapped down for her transparent narcissism by many blog respondents who are basically telling her to get a different hobby. How do you talk about the burning issues of science in that context?

Still, I would like to put in a vote for an inclusive and out of the box open door for a wide range of scientific views rather than the typical academic orthodoxy.

Also was wondering whether you are related to the novelist Sloan WIlson? I used to know his daughter.

posted 03/22/2008 at 18:19:43

Thank you so much for this wonderful post. As we restore our democratic principles in this country, we can stand on higher moral ground in asking for other world powers to turn away from suppressive and inhumane treatment of peoples, and instead honor ancient traditions and value differences in practice and belief.

I've always loved Chinese culture and they are an old and great culture-- but they degrade themselves and invite censure when they act this way. They forfeit the right to welcome the international community until they permit dialogue with the Tibetan leaders.

Those wanting to sign a petition to support these efforts can go to: http://www.avaaz.org/en/tibet_end_the_violence/22.php?cl=64827362> posted 03/22/2008 at 15:27:20

Thanks for your comments, exactly right on.

I must say that I find the cynicism in the face of tyranny displayed elsewhere in ths blog rather disheartening.

Having seen the potential abuses of wrong-headed government, why are people immediately unsympathetic with an ancient people crying out for the freedom to practice their way of life?

All the Tibetan people want is dialogue between their exiled leader, the Dalai Lama and the Chinese.

Anyone interested in supporting that can sign a petition at: posted 03/21/2008 at 17:59:42