What handle? And why should I break it?
I will begin by telling you the story of John Snow and one of the worst epidemics ever recorded.
John Snow was a London physician in the mid-1800s, a time when thousands were dying from cholera. After visiting neighborhoods, making observations, interviewing people, and collecting cholera illness and death rates, he determined the cause of the ongoing epidemic to be contaminated drinking water. His studies and maps were clear, his rates and proportions were solid. But nobody believed him. Certain of his theory, he regularly walked the dying neighborhood, even entering homes of the ill. He was, however, extremely careful not to drink their water. Eventually, removal of the handle from the Broad Street water pump ended the epidemic in that particular neighborhood, giving credence to Snow's theory. People stopped dying! But amazingly, they still did not believe him. His colleagues scoffed. The water looks fine! they insisted. Why should we have to walk all the way to the next block to get our water? the neighborhood asked.
This and other historical accounts of human disease demonstrate that the state of our population's health at any given time is not founded--like we believe--on applied science or a culmination of existing knowledge. Prior to application, study findings are filtered through an invisible cultural sieve and--if not ignored outright--become refined, averaged, molded, trimmed or diluted to the point of uselessness. Similar to what happens during post-war decades, the John Snow story exemplifies lessons that are either never learned or learned then promptly forgotten.
The Role of Convenience
Convenience was touted, especially amidst the death, despair and hysteria of cholera. With so many ill adults, children often collected the family's drinking water from one of several community pumps. Water is heavy. The Victorian children always walked to the nearest water pump. Today’s children can relate-- they buy their 32-oz Gatorade and candy from the closest convenience store. Convenience trumped evidence that the water could be deadly, leading to the continuation of illness within the population.
The Medical Status Quo
A review in the London Medical Journal in September 1849 complimented Snow for "endeavoring to solve the mystery of the communication of cholera," but the review added that "other causes, irrespective of the water, may have been in operation." Upon inspection of today’s journal reviews and editorials, it becomes apparent that the research establishment is held accountable for neither illness nor deaths resulting from ignoring those that turn out to hold accurate theories and effective interventions. To call this problematic is a huge understatement. The establishment simply continues to exist and predictably minimize the next independent study result. It is incredibly easy to discredit the outcomes of a particular study or intervention and difficult to consider trans-disciplinary scientific evidence. Jobs exist for the former…industrial research teams, government appointed committees, marketing teams, pharma-funded media (including all the major television networks) and the industry-funded Centers for Disease Control and Food & Drug Administration)—these all exist as common careers. How many independent epidemiologists do you know? (I know only one.) Consideration of the full spectrum of study findings is left to the individual or a non-profit who cannot possibly do it. The government-promoted status quo trumped the scientific evidence in 1849. Just as it does today.
Proof of Harm, Evidence of Harm, and Proof of Safety
The establishment requires proof of harm, even in the presence of clear evidence of harm, while simultaneously claiming that a single negative study (any study that fails to find even a minuscule, clinically irrelevant effect) proves safety. Read that last sentence over and over again until it makes sense, because this lies at the heart of the global industrial paradigm and why illness runs rampant through the generations alive today.
The role of science is not to prove anything but to provide evidence by asking and answering one question at a time. In the case of an intervention trial leading to disease resolution in the group receiving an intervention, the modern-day thinking is predictable:
A study finding is ...
not important,
not impressive because the design is epidemiological and not a clinical trial,
made up,
old and therefore no longer applicable,
invalid because the researcher is a quack.
In a more scientific and practical society, the next phase of inquiry would be triggered. Why did the intervention work in this person? and Can it be repeated in another person? Another population? and What other factors are important? and so on. Acting as if an intervention provides no evidence is ludicrous, but that is our mainstream reaction every time. The journal went on to say that Dr. Snow could "furnish no proof whatever of the correctness of his views." As if the resolution of a cholera epidemic was his opinion! I am reminded of today's ever-expanding searches for causes and searches for cures. If real-life human evidence does not count, then these will continue to be fruitless searches. With all this searching, should there be some finding?
If witnessing the resolution of disease following removal of the root cause (i.e., no more fatal cholera after access to contaminated water is prevented) does not count as worthy evidence, what would? I have been thinking about this for over a year. The answer is: Nothing. Unless outcomes of a real-life, real-time, pre-post intervention (the closest thing to proof outside laboratory-designed studies) can be considered, there is no real progress to be made. Under our current paradigm, nothing causes anything, because you have not proven it with a pharmaceutically-designed study. But this type of study is only effective in a laboratory. Quite a catch-22…one that benefits only industry and results in harm to the people supporting and comprising industry. If nothing causes anything, there cannot be a known--or even suspected--root cause. Unfortunately, recovery is reserved for those who address the root causes of their condition.
Do police detectives demand proof? No. “Proof” is elusive. A good detective, hardly ever having proof, deals instead with evidence. The effort- and time-consuming task of collecting, recognizing and sifting through potential evidence, which includes testimonies from living people, hopefully leads to the naming of one or more suspects. Our criminal justice system has (thankfully) determined that evidence is important, especially in the absence of what we consider “proof.” Our politics — the complete spectrum— would do wise to adopt this way of thinking and to consider broad evidence offered by the sciences.
Dr. Snow was not a conventional physician, as he was not satisfied managing the sick and dying. He stepped back to view the entire population, gathered data, and looked for clues in simple rates and proportions. He was curious enough to ask why some people remained healthy. Then he had the common sense to ask questions, then collect and organize the answers to those questions. So elegant in its simplicity. By asking questions and receiving the answers, he discovered the path taken by the root cause. He told the story of the root cause of cholera, even if nobody listened. Dr. Snow was a Disease Detective.
The Greatest Lesson That We Have Not Yet Learned
We must becoming detectives when investigating the potential root causes of our own illnesses or those of our children. We are not in front of a judge. We do not need to prove anything to the FDA or to our doctors. Remember, there is no single piece of proof to be found. Only evidence. Lots and lots of varying evidence. Keep an eye out for evidence, and consider each piece of evidence you collect, even if (and especially if) you are tempted to disregard it. If your physician or dentist disregards the piece of evidence, you have possibly stumbled upon a root cause. If you have never heard anything about this piece of evidence, if it has been hiding quietly in your mouth for decades, if your physician AND dentist ignore it, or if it is related to essential nutrient deficiency, toxins or synthetic energy (i.e., waves and frequencies), then you have stumbled upon an environmental root cause of illness. Given time to think, you may imagine that the recommendation or opinion offered by your trusted health care professional could be lacking validity at best and dangerous at worst. This counter-culture perspective broadens your range of options in ways you can neither predict nor imagine--in ways that can lead to recovery, not just symptom management.
Take time to consider all evidence, the multiple perspectives, and it may just point to an intervention. You may discover a water pump and you may be able and willing to break off its handle! You may even find multiple water pumps, each with their own handle; or water pumps with handles on the ground that need to be reattached; or water pumps with multiple handles! Now may be a good time to mention--it is easier to not look for water pumps in the first place. Once discovered, dealing with their handles is time-consuming, confusing, possibly expensive and hardly ever fun. The closest to fun I have experienced while addressing handles is sleeping for 8 hours and waking up pain- and mental illness-free following months of acute poisoning symptoms and the eventual self-demanded extraction of a root-canal-amalgam-filled tooth that looked fine on an x-ray.
Looking back with over a century of collective hindsight, it seems ridiculous that Londoners could not see the now-obvious causal association between the human waste accumulating in, under and around their homes and river and contaminated drinking water. With today's hygiene perspective, it is laughable.
One hundred years from now, about which aspects of society will the surviving Fast Methylators and Radiation Avoiders be laughing?
References
UCLA Department of Epidemiology, John Snow website, content by Ralph R. Frerichs
The Ghost Map: The Story of London's Deadliest Epidemic - and How it Changed the Way We Think about Disease, Cities, Science, and the Modern World (2006) by Steven Johnson
Love that you included the role of convenience in your essay. It's such an important element in the intentional exposures we allow for ourselves and our loved ones.
Dr Hill,
That was such an eloquently written piece with great analogies. You are giving the general public great food for thought—hopefully will urge those to start getting back to the basics and using a common sense approach to modern medicine.