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.

Human judgment

As a rule, human judgment is poor, and in some people, especially young people and those who are intoxicated at the time, unbelievably so.

Nutrient insufficiencies (~ those in the 1st to the 50th percentile, in populations consuming on average the EAR, the Estimated Average Requirement, of the nutrient) can aggravate the problem.

Deficiencies (less than 3% of the population for each nutrient, consuming the EAR, if the current numbers are correct and the CV in the population is about 10%) can render human judgment atrocious.

Example of atrocious judgment, massive illogic: people who are so paranoid that they cannot leave their domiciles.

The most paranoid people likely have nutrient deficiencies (like B9 and B12) on top of horrible judgment.

At least the nutrient deficiencies are detectable and correctable.

To correct bad judgment, we need new genes.


Surely you jested, Dr. Walford?

Dr. Roy Walford developed a diet he called CRON, which is “CR”, calorie restriction (roughly 60% of calories needed to maintain the “set point” weight, the weight one keeps going back to, over and over again), and “ON”, optimal nutrition, which he too narrowly conceived of as consuming foods that meet RDAs for the essential nutrients, non-essential nutrients being of no importance to good health and longevity, even though the body makes receptors to absorb these nutrients. Following the government’s lead, the optimal values of non-essential nutrients can be set to zero. Further, Dr. Walford considered supplements to be essentially useless because none of the popular ones extended mouse lifespan. Again, too narrowly conceived a concept.

Based on mouse experiments, with longevity as a (rather poor in my view – since all of us know people who have lived a very long time in poor health, a huge database of counterexamples) measure of health, Walford concluded that for humans and mice, CR > ON or CR >> ON, calorie restriction is more important or much more important for human health than optimal nutrition (than meeting RDAs).

Actuarial data are more relevant to us than experiments on lab mice, and these data have always contradicted this. The longest lived humans have always been those who are average weight and those who are above average weight. Given our rather poor judgment in dietary and indeed all matters, more calories helps because:

Total nutrition = total calories * average nutritional quality of the foods containing those calories

The actuarial data suggest that for our good health, as measured by longevity:

ON > CR (ON is somewhat more important than CR)

Dr. Walford, surely you jested in suggesting than CR > ON and the possibility that CR >> ON!

PS: Contrary to Walford’s claim, the actuarial data are not explained solely by the premature deaths of people with TB (up to 1900, roughly 1 in 7 people died of TB complications). That explains in part why skinny people have always been under-represented among the long-lived. It is most definitely not the whole story.

Surely, a second jest, Dr. Walford!

A note on cancer

When a person gets the cancer that will eventually kill him, usually from complications, not the cancer itself, his body fails him. Why? Because his body has at least one obvious weakness that the cancer is exploiting, and during conventional treatment, doctors weaken his body further.

It is likely that we have all had cancer numerous times before this final battle. The body won those battles, healed itself, because the body was stronger and doctors were not interfering with the body’s healing powers.

The worse thing imaginable is having better cancer diagnostic tools and having doctors interfere early and often and screw things up royally. When the body was stronger, it cured itself of cancer, not once, but many times.

When we get a terminal cancer, our only realistic chance at survival is by strengthening the body for the fight of its life, and for this, most conventional doctors are worse than useless – they are downright inimical to the process. Surgeons, a few non-conventional doctors, and very few scientists understand the importance of strengthening the body so that it can heal itself.

Doctors wrongly think that they heal the body. The body heals itself or it fails, and it mostly fails when poor stewardship has already weakened the body, giving it an obvious exploitable weakness, sometimes abetted by failure of the steward to deal properly with psych problems, and especially when doctors screw things up royally during “treatment.”

The power of healing is innate to the body

When the body is ill, it can heal itself or it can fail.

Mostly, the body fails, and much of this failure, in the first half of life, is due mostly to poor stewardship by the owner and by doctors. Late in life, the odds are firmly against healing, regardless of good stewardship, if that is even possible with all of the idiotic medical advice we are given (and are gullible enough to believe).

Doctors can help or hurt healing – mostly, doctors hurt the process of healing by weakening the body, often interfering with nature, with processes that have been selected for by the relentless pressures of a merciless nature.

Evolution does not hit the bull’s eye, but it does not miss the target. The facts of physiology must always be front and center in any biological model development.

Doctors are wrong to treat the body as a right idiot, opposing what the body is trying to do to help us to survive. Even when the body throws the cachectic response, it is a Hail Mary; the alternative is quick death  – give the body enough of everything that it is looking for (hint: 30 or so grams of glutamine a day helps, and even more vitamin C; make a list of what the body is looking for, including non-essential nutrients that it is not making enough of- and give it enough of those things, by infusion if necessary) and the problem of slow death by cachexia may go away.

In healing the body, surgeons mostly help, while other doctors mostly hurt.

Statistics is a backward science

Normality has its place, but it should not be at the head of the table.

Statistics has us chasing normality, the average, and quashing the exceptional, when the most interesting and important stuff is the exceptional, the outliers – they hold the key to everything from resistance to disease to the superior insight of the intellectually gifted.


Medicine’s big mistake

Treating us all as if we were the average person.

The key to successful treatment is to treat the individual with all of his quirks, idiosyncrasies, and non-average qualities, including of course his individual metabolism.

What applies in medicine applies elsewhere – treat everyone the same in just about any endeavor, and you mess up. Big time.