ALS: the Search for an Underlying Cause, part 1 of 2
by H.L. Sam Queen
The practice of modern-day medicine has accomplished many deeds that benefit each and every person. Yet, the process used by the practitioner leaves little chance for the body to ever reveal the fundamental, underlying cause of disease, whether it be ALS, cancer, or any other malady that people commonly fear. The practitioner’s training and the demands of third-party-pay places the focus mainly on diagnosis, crises care, and disease management. In this setting students are taught in accordance to the biomedical model of disease, where the emphasis is placed on making a diagnosis, putting a label on the diagnosis, and then treating the label.
Human chemistry is likewise taught in a manner that supports the disease-based model, where emphasis is given to out-of-range markers, either as a way to infer risk or to confirm the diagnosis. It is thus understandable that the enthusiasm for treating the label would extend to treating the data, a habit that is so engrained that interest in the label and the data often takes precedence over concern for treating the person. Yet, with all its faults, the disease model system reigns supreme when facing a crises. We wouldn’t want to replace it. However, when it comes to health the disease model system fails both the doctor and the individual, not only in getting at the underlying cause of the problem, but in the true applied understanding of the chemistry.
Doctors have not been trained to interpret chemistry in accordance to a human health model. To fill this training gap we are actively developing at our office a computer-assisted health model interpretation, which will hopefully be ready by year’s end. Making the transition away from disease and risk factors and towards the fundamentals surrounding health requires that the practitioner accept the reality that human chemistry is not just casual data. It is a highly specific language the body uses to converse with itself not only for nutritional needs, but to give itself instruction on how to live in our ever-changing environment while developing multiple strategies to do so. The intent of all of this chatter is clearly to do whatever is necessary to support not only the autonomic requirements, but the person’s every decision surrounding movement and intent…all-the-while striving always to keep the body alive.
An example of the body’s winning design can be seen in the typical work day of an emergency medicine specialist whose patient may have just experienced a heart attack. When this occurs (and if not immediately fatal) the damaged heart will strive to switch to low energy glycolysis…allowing the person to hopefully stay alive long enough to be rescued. This, working alongside an array of homeostatic controls, provides continuous supporting evidence that we humans are surely designed to win, not to lose, and that chemistry (if we’re to get it right) must be viewed through this lens. By seeing ALS in this light, and the many toxins suspected in its onset and progression, we begin (together) our health model-based search for answers.
In part 2 of this series, I will discuss what body fat and the serum lipids can tell you about the way your body is handling environmental toxic exposure, and how treating the data (as the first course of action) may leave you vulnerable to the toxin’s negative effects.