Archive

Archive for June, 2010

Desperately Seeking Simplified Theories

The following excerpts are from ‘Physics’ (“Notes on the Scientific method”) by Oscar M. Stewart (published by Ginn and Co., New York, N.Y., 1924, 1931, 1939, 1944). This insight seems to be lost on too many of the medical researchers in the field today.

“One should never accept a statement of facts unless he feels confident thatit is in agreement with experiment.”

“The habit of trying to explain things in terms of general principles is one of the most important attitudes of a good scientist.”

“… [T]he number of fundamental concepts and fundamental principles is small. This assumption is sometimes called the ‘law of parsimony’…”

“Any attempt to find a general law is an attempt to reduce the number of laws.”

***

What this means from a Life-Systems Engineering Science perspective, is that the SIMPLEST explanation is most likely to be right.

Now, think about this:

If a risk factor cannot be attributed to the majority of cases of a certain disease, then that factor is not the primary cause of the disease.

Let’s look at current cancer theories.

Most are too complicated and they do not fit this requirement. A risk factor may be a contributing actor to the disease or merely a concidental factor termend an “association”. In my book, “The Hidden Story of Cancer”, I talk about how the current “risk factors”, “associated factors”, and theories linking cholestoerol, saturated fat and heart disease do NOT fit this requirement, either.

Unnecessary complication is NNOT required to find answers in science.

Dr. Warburg knew this a long long time ago.

So why don’t the researchers of today know this?

That is a mystery…

Read more about this in “The Hidden Story of Cancer”. You can get a copy of this book from http://www.brianpeskin.com, or http://www.pinnaclepress.com.

They Ignored This Back in 1940, Too!

Dr. Daniel Munro, M.D. was an early proponent of the high protein diet and he wrote about it in a book.

He stated in his book “Man alive, you’re half dead” back in 1940, that “herbivorous animals, such as the cow or sheep, eating only vegetable food, have specialized digestion. They are equipped to eat large quantities of food in proportion to their size, COMPARED TO HUMANS. They all first alkalize their food by much chewing (their saliva being alkali), and they all RE-CHEW THEIR FOOD for a long time (chewing the cud). They all have a large sack or pouch, where man has a tiny appendix.

“Man, with his small appendix, seems plainly in the class of meat-eating animals, rather than the herbivorous animals with their large pouches. WE CANNOT CHEW OUR CUD.

“Physiology of digestion was ignored. Let’s begin to think about it now…”

This was back in 1940, folks! Unfortunately, barely anyone took the time to think about this. Even back in 1940 it was not politically correct to extol the virtues of red meat. We can trace the unfortunate birth of politically correct nutritional science to this period, and widespread obesity and bad health have been the result – a nation bursting at the seams, overweight, exhausted, and susceptible to a myriad of illnesses.

Even now people try to “justify” vegetarianism by repeating the myth that our digestive tract is more like a sheep’s than a wolf’s. This is simply not true. For an excellent comparison of the carnivore, vs. herbivore, vs. man, take a look at this table: http://scienceofhealthindex.com/images/herbivorecarnivorechart.jpg

For more information, visit http://www.brianpeskin.com today or pick up his book “The 24-Hour Diet”.