Rule: People are either not insane or not sane

Recall my convenient distinction of the six degrees of a quantifiable quality, in this case, applied to sanity:

  1. very insane – 2. insane – 3. not insane – 4. not sane – 5. sane – 6. very sane
  2. Since so many independent processes have to be just right for true sanity, I doubt there are any level 6 people. Maybe there never were any.
  3. The distribution is left-tailed (there are level 1 people, and some who are not institutionalized).
  4. People are mostly 3s and 4s and there are more 2s than 5s.

Evidence: the least sane, the most mentally unbalanced writers are the most read and the most listened to.

The more outrageous their ideas the more popular they are.

Big lies and big exaggerations are more readily believed, given the lack of sanity of the audience (the complete absence of 6s, the dearth of 5s).

This is the body – many wheels with many cogs

There is no master wheel and no master cogs on wheels. The body is a network of networks of networks….like a Swiss watch, with no one and no thing in charge.

Prospective clinical studies attempting to find miracle cures with single nutrients are inane.

So are man-made drugs.

Here is the image to keep in mind, only that in the body the wheels keep going right off the page – every nutrient is a cog and every important structure in the body is a wheel attached to other wheels with thousands of cogs.

Image result for cog on a wheel

http://www.pixcove.com/gear-wheel-gear-paraphernalia-gearwheel-mechanics-cogs-mechanisms-rack-wheel-cogwheel-cog-cog-wheel-gears/

The green wheel is bigger than any of the black wheels. This is just like nature, but note that the green wheel is not a behemoth and the black wheels are not pygmies. It is a difference in degree.

As a rule, causal thinking is errant thinking.

 

Harder than finding a needle in a haystack

Finding a needle in the wrong haystack.

So many thinkers have bad instincts. As a rule, they look for needles in the wrong haystacks. Admittedly, a good thinker does so on occasion.

Trying to make LDL cholesterol somehow “bad cholesterol” is an egregious example. A molecule most welcome to the cells of the body for its wonderful payloads, including cholesterol, CoQ10, vitamin E and vitamin K (although chylomicrons and chylomicron remnants carry most of the K), LDL cholesterol cannot possibly be bad. However, it can become damaged and that damaged molecule can do harm.

But do not seek the solution to this problem in the wrong haystack. Do not seek to lower LDL cholesterol using drugs.

The right haystack to look for the solution:

Try to limit the production of adulterants and increase their turnover, both by natural means. If methyl glyoxal is such an adulterant of LDL cholesterol, look to reducing sugar and refined starch intake, and look to the proper running of glycolysis, Krebs, and OXPHOS. Study the metabolism of adulterants in affected individuals and normalize by natural means – proper nutrition and sensible, well-balanced supplementation.

My last words

Thought I would write my last words while I am still lucid enough.

These are the ironic last words I would speak if I am able. It sums up everything that I as an empiricist do not believe in. The words are:

“Non cogito, ergo – non sum.”

Unlike Descartes’ “cogito, ergo sum” – the oft-praised exception to the rule – something that was true for a cosmic blip and false forever more and for all time before Descartes. Man loves exceptions and he fears rules. But rules rule and by nature exceptions must pay homage to rules. A test of man’s rationality: when he learns to favor rules, no matter how painful at first, and disfavor exceptions.

My statement is the rule: True for all time, as you will never ever find any empirical evidence of a single thought that I had after I am gone.

A pithy statement of the vitamin C problem

The body aggressively absorbs vitamin C like a precious nutrient, but rapidly excretes the excess like a dangerous toxin.

In between, it circulated the vitamin C throughout the aqueous compartments of the body and retained what little it needed. This is what needs explanation – a sensible scientific model is just the beginning.

A model in which vitamin C does its most important work in the urinary system is immediately suggested, even if it ultimately proves wrong.

A scientist who assumes that whatever ends up in the urinary waste stream is simply waste or simply toxic would be simply naïve. The urinary stream contains valuable substances to the urinary system and to the urinary stream itself. Magnesium, citrate and vitamin C are three such substances, all present in citrus fruits, which the body -and the urinary system in particular- makes good uses of, when given sufficient dietary excess.

We would not be here if the body was so simple “minded” as most scientists are.

A hypostasis

Causation – an asymptote of major sources, an abstraction, an emotional exaggeration and major intellectual confusion that has been given substance, as if it is an everyday reality like a tree or a car.

The ultimate causal confusion – god, an everlasting spiritual substance who cannot be zeroed, as the creator of the world.

Re: Kant – it is not the job of the philosopher to make categories out of intellectual confusions/emotional exaggerations. The philosopher detects these, criticizes them, and suggests replacements, in this case, more empirical language.

The advantages of vitamin C as a chelator

1. Its safety.
2. As far as I know, it can get anywhere in the aqueous compartments in the body.
3. Excesses are aggressively excreted without having to be metabolized first. Yes, aggressive excretion of a substance can be used to advantage!

Needed: an amphipathic chelator (could be excreted in urine), or a complementary lipophilic chelator (would need metabolism to be excreted in urine), at least as good as vitamin C – with the same aggressive excretion profile of any excesses.

Is lipoic acid about as safe an amphipathic chelator as vitamin C is a water-soluble chelator?

Modest excesses of vitamin C are good for kidney function. Since heavy metals are so harmful to the kidneys, is chelation one of the benefits (better solubilizing of the contents of urine being another) to the kidneys that comes from rapidly excreting vitamin C?