About mljczz

I received a Ph.D. in Biochemistry in 1983 from The Ohio State University. After a sixteen year career researching and developing rapid, ultra-sensitive, quantitative DNA probe assays for the diagnosis and prognosis of deadly diseases, I have been researching and developing meals with optimal nutrition since 2000. Along the way I have also published many other books dealing with nutrition and general philosophical issues. See my Amazon, my Barnes and Noble, or my Smashwords links.

The roots of psychosomatic illness

Essential backdrop: a feeling of being underappreciated.

Rule: a series of small shocks rather than a single traumatic event. Freud had both neurosis and psychosis backwards: statistically, many small shocks to the system are much more probable than a single traumatic event.

Note: every disease, even psychosomatic illness, leaves a metabolic footprint, detectable in bodily fluids, bodily secretions and bodily excretions. This footprint is useful for diagnosis and for providing some relief by treating symptoms, but treating this metabolic footprint is not useful for the cure of psychosomatic illness, the illness most unwell people are suffering from.


Most unwell people have psychosomatic illness

The majority of unwell people are currently under-treated.

The majority of illnesses defined to date are somatic, with over 6,000 named genetic diseases alone, with a root problem consisting of one or more toxins’ exploiting weaknesses in our defense systems.  Treating somatic illnesses rarely shows more than a background level of placebo effects.

Psychosomatic illness sometimes shows extraordinary levels of placebo effects. I have commented on the extraordinary level (about 65%) seen in treating inflammatory bowel disease.

The majority of people who are unwell are so because of psychosomatic illness, which is so prevalent in part because they require neither toxins nor exploitable weaknesses. These psychosomatic illnesses lead to all kinds of metabolic imbalances, and some serious toxicological problems (such as heavy drinking and taking of drugs), but treating their symptoms, correcting the toxic problems and the nutrient insufficiencies would net the sufferers only a little relief because it does not address their underlying problems, many of which are imaginary (imagined illness from imaginary insults), and all of which involve errant thinking and hurt feelings, and a serious case of feeling underappreciated.

Errant thinking and hurt feelings are man’s fundamental problems. They hinder the progress of our species and torture so many people for much of their lives. One would think we would invest a little bit more in learning to be happy (happiness calculators until we learn to do it naturally), in learning to control negative feelings, in proper thinking, in logic, in math, in science, etc.

Screening biological fluids for toxins and nutrient deficiencies can help those with somatic illnesses get better, but even if toxins were removed and exploitable weaknesses corrected in those with psychosomatic illness, those people would benefit little. Their wounded psyches (in either brains or gut or both) appear to benefit more from taking placebos and receiving some tender loving care, whenever they can get some.

Roger Williams tried to find a cocktail of substances to help people overcome addiction issues. These people have metabolic insufficiencies before they become addicted, and these insufficiencies may have contributed to their addictions, but they did not cause them. Correcting insufficiencies would not have prevented the addiction and cannot cure them. Addiction makes the metabolic problems and the toxicological problems worse, but somehow it offers some benefits that seem to outweigh, at least in the mind that is thinking errantly, the original problems and the additional problems.

When are scientists going to get it?



If EV-D68 is causing paralysis, it’s not clear why it does so in very few cases. But the same is true for the poliovirus, which causes only mild symptoms, or none at all, in more than 99% of those infected. One theory is that the virus can infect nerves in rare cases when it slips into an injured muscle. Another is that genetic factors play a role; Duggal and her colleagues have enrolled nearly 60 families in their study to test that theory.

For somatic disease at least two things are required: a toxin and an exploitable weakness.

Even polio virus paralyzed only 1% of the children who were infected – the number may be less than this because not every infection is detected. The injured muscle, genetic factors, nutrient deficiency, multiple nutrient insufficiencies are all examples of possible exploitable weaknesses.


The stress level of a diabetic whose diabetes is due to psychosomatic gut illness

The stress level is in between that of a full blown fight-or-flight response and ordinary levels of stress, and geometrically closer to the latter. It may even be low enough to require little in the way of hormonal input to maintain. Nervous activity may be enough to support it in the majority of cases, consistent with the view that cortisol overexpression is not responsible for any of the major symptoms of type II diabetes.

Artificial even if not artifactual

Calorie restriction (CR) and methionine restriction (MR) have been shown to extend the maximum mouse lifespan by ~ 50%. Both are artificial, even if they are not artifactual. They are artificial, not natural, because in nature one cannot restrict one’s calories by twofold and still meet all of one’s nutritional requirements (which for optimum health, are the sum of the essential nutrient requirements plus the non-essential nutrient requirements). Methionine restriction is not possible in nature – one cannot ingest any natural proteins that have methionine and no cysteine.

But CR and MR may be artifactual as well, artifacts of a synthetic diet that is not properly formulated, even with respect to the essential nutrients, is focused on survival and essential nutrients, while ignoring optimal health and the role of non-essential nutrients, which is based on the fact that the animals’ bodies are making receptors for all kinds of substances that they already make. It is unlikely that any animal makes an optimal amount of many nutrients. By rule, animals make a suboptimal amount of important nutrients and look to their diets to supply the balance.

While survival does not require non-essential nutrients, optimal health does. That is, the amount that is made + the amount that one can reasonably expect to be in the diet is approximately the optimal amount for good health, maximum reproductive fitness, and maximum natural longevity, given the natural forces of evolution that have favored growth and reproduction over maintenance and repair.

Because the synthetic diets of laboratory animals are not supplying the appropriate levels of these non-essential nutrients for optimal health, the animals are deficient, metabolically imbalanced, not in optimal health, and in a state of stress because when the diet does not supply the balance of nutrients, something has to give for each imbalance. Each imbalance creates its own metabolic stresses and the bodies are well-honed by evolutionary forces to deflect and redistribute these stresses so that no one system bears the brunt. This makes the stresses harder to detect by any method other than the study of cellular metabolism.

Thus, any artificial treatment, especially one focused on survival and not optimal health, that reduces the effects of these stresses, artificially created in all of the animals by a diet focused on survival and essential nutrients, may then be expected to extend maximum lifespan. These procedures are 100% artificial, possibly artifactual, and seriously suboptimal.

We need to begin again, with optimal nutrition and optimal health. Everyone is different. My requirements are different from yours. Every animal is different from every other. One must figure out what each of us needs as far as essential nutrients and what each of us needs in non-essential nutrients for smooth metabolic performance. For a healthy, well-nourished body, the amount of a non-essential nutrient that one needs is approximately what the body is trying to absorb. Obvious exceptions are Na+, Cl-, ascorbate, and I-, where the body is so desperate for these nutrients that it is trying to absorb everything that we give it. This worked well in a state of nature. Today it is a disaster beyond our imaginations in respect of essential nutrients Na+ and Cl-. The optimal diet supplies BOTH the essential and the nonessential nutrients, in appropriate quantities and at the right times, with excess calories.

Several other problems with the synthetic animal food diets:

  1. They do not have the optimal level of the essential nutrients
  2. They do not have the proper ratios of all the push-pull pairs
  3. Sometimes they have a suboptimal chemical form or insufficient purity

In sum, it is likely that CR and even MR are real hormetic stresses, artificial, but not necessarily artifactual. However, because of the woefully inadequate nutritional theory that underlies animal nutrition, it is possible that they are artifactual as well.

Governments have economic interests in their citizens’ premature mortality

Because of costs, such as social security and Medicare costs, governments, the US government in my case, has an interest in our premature mortality.

This explains why they avoid the important question of optimal nutrition, why they set ridiculously low RDAs and ridiculously low upper limits of toxicity on nutrients. They do not want us benefiting from supplements, and certainly do not want us enjoying optimal nutrition and health.

Worse, they attack supplements as either useless or harmful. Utter nonsense. The problem with supplements is they often have a suboptimal chemical form (folic acid rather than tetrahydrofolate) and they are routinely unbalanced, as supplement manufacturers have not realized that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and each part is a member of multiple push-pull pairs and must be properly balanced. In the absence of quality studies, the natural ratios present in a large selection of whole foods is a reasonable starting point.

Government officials are deathly afraid that we will live too long and cost the system too much.

I have commented many times in this blog on all of the senseless and stupid attacks on Linus Pauling and all of the funding they have paid to shills to discredit Pauling, when it is obvious to anyone with a brain that Pauling was right on the important stuff, the fundamentals. Not just about vitamin C pills, but about everything, including infusions of vitamin C as an adjunctive cancer therapy. Cancer researchers have alleged bias in the selection of patients for the vitamin C infusions. Can anyone tell me how one can cherry pick 100 patients out of 1100 terminal cancer patients so as to get a fourfold increased survival? Utter nonsense, no doubt funded by the government or that other powerful group of liars, pharma.

When the government funds a study to discredit Pauling’s vitamin C infusion adjunctive cancer therapy, done by Mayo Clinic, that uses pills, when his study used infusions with 10x the average concentration and 100 times the peak concentration, it is clear that they are deathly afraid, and here we are just talking about 4x longer survival in terminal cancer patients.

But of course it goes beyond this. Government officials cite evidence of vitamin K deficiency in seniors randomly assayed in hospitals, and then proceed to discount it, claiming that there is no evidence of vitamin K deficiency in the US in the conclusion to their article, and more generally there is no evidence of any type of vitamin or mineral deficiency in the US in their books, as in the 1989 RDA, 10th edition – ridiculous!

Worse, the government defines the daily UL for Iodine of 1 gram, when Japanese women living in fishing villages, consume more than 10 times that. What toxic reactions do they show? If there is any, look at impurities in the mineral preparations as most likely being responsible (this is one possible explanation why natural sources do not have this problem). None that I can think of, but they are virtually free of fibrocystic diseases of the breast and breast cancer. The government is deathly afraid that American women will discover this research, so they discredit it in advance, and recommend a paltry 150 micrograms a day of iodide, barely enough to keep the thyroid gland working properly. Ridiculous!

Anyone with a brain would ultra-purify a supplement before doing toxicological studies. Otherwise trace impurities in some sloppy manufacturing process could complicate the interpretation. One must make sure that the supplement has been properly purified with the most stringent QC. Vitamin B6 has been blamed for neurological problems at doses above UL, but no one has repeated the studies with ultra-purified vitamin B6! Idiots!

The proper RDA for a nutrient has to be set as the level to adequately meet the needs of the organ or tissue that has a demonstrable need for the nutrient but is least capable of concentrating the nutrient, provided that there are no adverse consequences.  Breast tissue, stomach tissue and the salivary glands all need iodide, and higher levels must be taken to meet their needs than is required to meet the needs of the best concentrator of iodide, the thyroid gland.

Give them a fine reputation to live up to –

One of Dale Carnegie’s tips to win friends and influence people.

Used in the ancient myths of Atlantis and the Garden of Eden – their one saving grace, because they are wrong – man did not degrade himself by sinning; step by step, on his own merits, he elevated himself above lower creatures.

The story of evolution also gives us a believable history and with our self-made progress to date, a fine reputation to live up to, as long as we do not attribute any of our advances to god and as long as we do not succumb to hubris.