This man could save your life.

Einstein began as an outsider. If today’s gatekeepers had run the journals in 1905, Einstein’s “miracle year” papers would have been rejected because he wasn’t employed and controlled by a university.

After he pulled the ripcord on space and time, Einstein faced rejection by his peers. That’s said to be the single most depressing thing that can happen to a person.

Physicists called him a mathematician. Mathematicians called him a physicist.

When the Nobel Committee finally realized his new-fangled universe wasn’t going away, they awarded Einstein the Nobel Prize for a fairly concrete paper he wrote on the photoelectric effect. With narrow minds, they passed over his impossibly radical discoveries — the flexibility of time and space, the equivalence of mass and energy, and the gravity of General Relativity.

To be fair, all of us have sacred-cow beliefs that we “know” are accurate beyond question. The Nobel Committee of the early 20th Century wasn’t so different from the rest of us.

But today, science’s devotion to skepticism has become a reflex for protecting certain key dogmas and assumptions that are felt to be “proven,” when in fact, some of them are not even testable.

An example would be “scientific materialism,” an assumption that is mistakenly considered to be foundational to science.

It’s the belief that the universe is composed of matter and energy alone. Nothing else. Therefore all information in our heads or in our DNA, as well as our sense of personhood are ultimately derived from matter and energy through random interactions that have accidentally created in us an “illusion of consciousness” with a sense of purpose which, like everything else about us, doesn’t actually exist except as a cruel and false illusion.

Scientific materialism, if anyone thinks about it, is as untestable as the assumption that intelligent consciousness is somehow at the foundation of the Universe and is the one thing that can’t be divided into mindless components.

Either way, the assumption is a choice that most of us make subconsciously without knowing when we made it.

Especially the highly educated people — we swim in a sea of scientific materialism. Like fish, we don’t focus much on what we’re swimming in until an outsider’s net hauls us into an unfamiliar world where air replaces the thing we’ve assumed was unchangeable.

So no one should be surprised that an outsider has hauled mainstream medicine up in his net.

This time it’s Ivor Cummins, an engineer with no medical background — the perfect outsider.

Listen to this guy, now. His speech could easily save your life if you can understand and remember it in full detail…

Cummins is teaching the medical establishment the shocking truth about two of today’s top killers, heart disease and type 2 diabetes. He tells us that…

  • Type 2 diabetes (including “pre-diabetes”) causes the vast majority of heart attacks (MI’s).
  • Between 49 and 65 percent of adults in the US have type 2 diabetes or “prediabetes” (which is a fairly unscientific division).
  • Testing insulin response (not glucose) for five hours after a glass of glucose gives the most accurate and info-rich diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (and “prediabetes”), as well as a uniquely valuable MI-risk predictor.
  • A $100 scan of the heart’s arteries (a coronary calcium scan) performs far better at determining MI risk than the various cholesterol measurements we use today in the US.
  • Improving your insulin response to sugar (by limiting carbohydrates, which reverses insulin resistance) prevents heart attack (MI).
  • Simply grinding up healthy food into powder causes an unhealthy insulin response in lab mice. The same thing probably applies to humans, but who would you ask to fund the study, C&H Sugar?

Why is an engineer able to put the vast and complex medical literature on heart disease and diabetes together logically, while the entire medical establishment can’t do it?

  1. Ivor Cummins is an unbiased thinker who personally faced a high risk of fatal heart disease despite his quite “healthy” lifestyle.
  2. As an engineer, he specialized in fixing novel problems within various complex systems. MD’s don’t have “complex systems analysis” as a specialty.
  3. Medicine is divided into specialties and subspecialties that cater to the info limits of the human mind. Busy MD’s struggle to stay current within their own specialties and rarely if ever do an exhaustive literature search outside their own narrow focuses, let alone doing an original analysis on a broad literature review outside their given specialty.
  4. Money influences the medical literature more than we care to admit. In the same way biased news is easily created by a bias selection of news stories, so modern medical science is hindered by an unbalanced selection of things to be studied. For instance, imagine there’s a plant in the rainforest that cures a disease. Scientists are unlikely to obtain funding to discover the plant and far less likely to find a grant large enough to cover the huge costs of the randomized, blinded trials required to show its worth to the FDA. Why no funding? Because a wild plant cannot be patented. This fact alone has created a gigantic bias in mainstream medical literature. The result is a multi-billion dollar industry of over-the-counter “dietary supplements” that go permanently untested and unapproved by the FDA.

If Ivor Cummins message doesn’t save your life, he does offer you another gift… the wisdom to refrain from shouting down the outliers in your fields of expertise. The wisdom to listen respectfully to those who “couldn’t possibly” be right because you already know the truth.

The greatest scientific, political and spiritual breakthroughs of history have come mainly from outsiders who were free of the mainstream dogmas and assumptions of their time.

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

21 thoughts on “This man could save your life.

  1. A society,
    from its outcast,
    social change
    will be brought into living picture.

    That’s a quote from a long poem I just posted on my blog that should interest you being a physician open to new ideas. It talks about a different kind of immune system within us largely unknown, one that deals with diseases of the mind and heart.
    https://harms-end.com/2018/06/20/the-killer-find/
    At any rate, I appreciate your blog.

  2. I do sincerely apologise if my flip brand of sarcasm has offended you. Some are sensitive to it for this type of conversation and I suppose I can understand why.

    I can assure you that it was only intended as my feeble attempt at a sense of humor.

    I’m sure from what we know, thought could be classified as energy. We can observe what happens to the brains neurons while it has the experience of thought, and therefore I would say we can observe thought albeit in a very crude way.

    “So what is this mind of ours: what are these atoms with consciousness? Last week’s potatoes! They now can remember what was going on in my mind a year ago—a mind which has long ago been replaced. To note that the thing I call my individuality is only a pattern or dance, that is what it means when one discovers how long it takes for the atoms of the brain to be replaced by other atoms. The atoms come into my brain, dance a dance, and then go out—there are always new atoms, but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday.”

    Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman 

    Materialism, also called physicalism, in philosophy, is the view that all facts including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them.

    In other words, 

    1.Either something exists or it doesn’t. I don’t see how talking about human limitations of perception can change that.

    2.Cause and effect either exists or it doesn’t.

    Understanding that physical cause and effect has brought us to a certain point as to what we believe, doesn’t mean that a conversation or two can’t be a part of that cause and effect.

    If you believe that all your beliefs, desires, and actions are the result of deterministic physical processes, in can still be said that you have some sort of true decision making ability.  

    This is why Quantum mechanics works with probabilities. Cause and effect give a rise to probabilities.

    Determinism and fatalism are not the same position. Determinism does not imply that you ought to become completely passive and “let fate take its course,” because “whatever will be will be” or “It was meant to be”, because even in a deterministic universe, your actions are part of what shapes the future.

    The interaction of other actions combined with yours, can then produce other parts of the cause and effect process that may persuade you to agree or change your mind.

    None of this means that the choice to put butter on your toast instead of jam this morning was necessarily determined 1 million years ago.

    The fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists 2/3 to 1/3 are atheist doesn’t surprise me.

    The remaining 1/3 is only more a demonstration for me of the sadly misled who are eager to show what a scientist with a pet theory looks like.

    You might be interested to know that Buddhist scripture gives a teaching as to the view that this God deity does exist but only as a sadly deluded creature.

    If you would like, I can give you a link and discuss this further with you.

    When you have the spare time you may wish to give this a look.

    It gives a discussion of what is termed “Compatibilism” versus the hard deterministic view which is what I believe you have been referring to.

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#FreAccClaCom

    Thank you again! 

    I consider you a truly brilliant person whom by we can all learn a great deal.

    Have a great day!

    Brother Mark:)

    • Now there’s the Brother Mark I know and love! Thanks for your kind words and insightful thoughts.

      Regarding this discussion of assumptions, it tends to be a never ending back-and-forth with people like us who have already thought it through carefully and made up our minds. I’m not sure there’s anything to be gained by trying to beat the topic into logical submission. It’s purely a matter of what assumption pleases a person. Is the universe purely matter and energy? Looking outward the answer often seems to be yes. Looking inward, it often seems to be no, there’s something more. To the assumption we adopt we can add Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle which gives greater randomness to the materialist as well as the non-materialist views, but doesn’t change the basic assumption of either. I don’t think it’s an issue of understanding cause and effect, it’s an issue of causes – whether or not you think consciousness can bring a new (uncaused) cause into the universe, i.e. free will. If not, then all the uncertainty in the Universe doesn’t make a person capable of changing the future or anything else, as best I can tell. Fatalism becomes fatalism-light (determinism). The added uncertainty merely adds to the convincing nature of this false “illusion of consciousness” that materialists assume is the accurate way to perceive the mind. It’s a perfectly respectable assumption, just as its opposite is respectable. Since neither assumption can be tested (except subjectively), these discussions devolve into endless layers of opinion, definition, finer fruitless distinctions and emotional appeals to human authority, which, incidentally, if materialists are right, is merely an illusion of authority.

      On the one hand, I fear that the forced feeding of materialism to our children is contributing to their high incidence of clinical depression and suicide by convincing them that life is meaningless and no higher purpose could possibly exist for them. On the other hand, I suspect that God has gone to a great deal of trouble to create a Universe where it’s possible to find out who you are in the absence of God’s physical presence and influence. I suspect that we requested this experience and it’s the main purpose of our brief lives here. But I could be totally wrong. I often am.

      Bless you, Brother Mark, you’re an impressive human being whom I deeply respect.

      • Light years from now, this exchange between you two will be displayed at a cultural museum as a shining example of what human interaction via the internet could be.
        Thank you for showing this to me, here and now.

        • Thank you, Spira. Brother Mark makes this kind of discussion possible. He’s full of compassion and has had broad experiences that have brought him great insight.

          And thank you, Spira, for the inspiration of your fearless life and incredible art.

  3. Reblogged this on Meeka's Moving and commented:
    I know some of my friends have Type II diabetes already, and some of us, possibly myself included, are heading towards insulin resistance, so ALL of us should a) read this article and b) watch the video from start to finish. -hugs- Meeks

  4. It certainly is protective to eat a low-refined-carbohydrate diet (making sure that any starchy carbs that are eaten are resistant starches – another example of a beneficial molecular structure that pushes carb digestion past those cells in the duodenum), and it’s generally a good idea not to be sedentary, nor to ingest alcohol, caffeine and nicotine, but lifestyle interventions that address these concerns are of limited value, because there are millions of people who apparently violate all of these principles, and yet they still live very long, healthy lives. Why should this be so? They probably don’t snore.

    Poor sleep quality, usually due to obstructive sleep apnea, is the only variable that has independent associations with hyperinsulinemia/insulin resistance/type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, magnesium levels, vitamin D levels, and stress. There’s an enormous body of medical journal literature reporting research into this phenomenon, but medical practice in most clinical areas has yet to acknowledge that what happens or doesn’t happen due to poor oxygenation during sleep provides the etiology for so much pathophysiology. Snoring is the gross observable symptom of the obstructive apnea which is the major contributor to poor sleep, but there are so many people who are thus afflicted that snoring is regarded as funny (at best), or a mild annoyance (at worst). Unfortunately, there’s a lot more than just nasopharyngeal noise that’s going on during a lousy night’s sleep or a nap that fails to refresh.

    All the risks and associated diseases mentioned in the video converge in the disorder of sleep apnea. This means that even the calcium scanning the speaker advocates is simply shutting the barn door after the horse got out. Polysomnography is the only diagnostic test that will yield interventions that can improve the health (and ultimately save the life) of the vast majority of people: the ones who snore.

    Sleep. It seems so simple, because everybody does it, but that’s probably why it’s taken for granted.

    • You’re so right about sleep apnea. It’s extremely common and not limited to obese people. And it can be postural. Some people have it when they sleep on their backs but not on their sides.

      Anyone who snores should definitely get a sleep study, but unfortunately it’s easier said than done. I’ve wanted a sleep study for over 20 years and I still haven’t been able to get all the stars lined up right to make it happen. I doubt my insurance would cover it, but I’d gladly pay out of pocket.

      Regarding the coronary calcium scan, if you catch the calcium buildup a little early, you can make the lifestyle changes needed to stop the progression of coronary atherosclerosis. That’s what our man, Cummins, in the video has done for himself.

      Some claim that the calcification (as well as other aspects of coronary atherosclerosis) is reversible, but that’s controversial.

      As a pathologist, I’d estimate I’ve seen about 20 or 30 times more calcified coronary arteries than acute myocardial infarctions. So the calcification isn’t an automatic death warrant, “cows-out-of-the-barn” thing by a long shot.

      The calcium scan is totally and completely worth doing. It would save countless lives assuming patients made the needed lifestyle changes. Especially lowering their carb intake.

      Hey, thanks for your awesome, well-informed comment. 🙂

      • The calcium scanning is definitely a good weapon in the healthcare armory, but it’s still only detecting very early signs of damage. Moreover, in my experience as an RN, “assuming patients made the needed lifestyle changes,” is a pretty big assumption (as are all ideas that incorporate the concept of “if”).

        In my perfect healthcare world, polysomnography would be considered essential preventive care, with complete insurance coverage. Until then, every primary care provider should perform a thorough sleep quality screening for every patient (with particular attention to the presence of all conditions that are known to be associated with sleep apnea), and make appropriate sleep medicine referrals. I’d be willing to wager that such a system of assessment, diagnosis and treatment would nip most CVD, NIDDM and much psychopathology in the bud, thereby vastly decreasing morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs.

        (Thanks for the loan of the soapbox. You can have it back, now.) 🙂

        • Great point that sleep apnea causes mental health issues! My son’s psychology professor once said that 95% of the problems that his patients face could be reversed by improving their sleep.

          You’re so right about the difficulty of motivating patients to make lifestyle changes. My son-in-law is a family practitioner who’s educated himself about the relationship between carbohydrates and insulin resistance. He’s had great success with the majority of patients. He has a non-coddling approach with them. If they’re not interested in reversing the disease, he detects it right away and gives them the “standard of care” treatment (insulin) and tells them the truth about the pathophysiology and the ramifications of giving yet more insulin to a person with too much insulin due to insulin resistance (which is due to chronic carbohydrate toxicity). It’s true that some patients would rather die than give up their carbs, especially rice.

          The earlier (in the course of atherosclerosis) that a patient detects their coronary artery calcification, the greater their opportunity to prevent an MI. So that’s a strength of the calcium scan, not a weakness. It can also detect severely advanced disease, but that’s getting close to the cows-out-of-the-barn scenario where the patient has less opportunity to intervene.

          Thank you for your great comments! My soapbox always has room for you. 🙂

  5. Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD,

    Good morning!
    Thanks for reminding me to get back to my audiobook “Signature In A Cell”.
    I will say that just because we can talk about the sacred cow syndrome doesn’t mean that what is considered an established scientific fact somehow changes into something more questionable.
    By the way, if you ever discover another basic composition to the universe other than matter and energy, that can in any way be objectively observed as being something other than someone’s imagination, I’m sure the scientific community would appreciate the memo.

    Thank you for your time.

    Have a great day!

    Brother Mark:)

    • Sarcasm? Brother Mark, really?
      But anyway, consciousness seems to collapse the quantum wave function in classic experiments dealing with light. That implies that consciousness is not the illusion that materialism dictates. It’s reasonable to believe that it would take more than an illusion to collapse the wave function of a photon. Also the sense of free will that we have can be taken as evidence that we are more than a false illusion that’s reducible to mindless, deterministic matter and energy. If there is no free will, why would scientists try to change other people’s minds about materialism or about anything else? In a deterministic reality (materialism), everybody would believe what they have been caused to believe, so any discussion about anything would be pointless. And yet we scientists continue to try and influence each other. That’s evidence that none of us fully believes in a billiard-ball, materialistic, deterministic universe where the choices needed for learned and thinking are impossible. But I guess it’s only evidence if you choose to think of it that way. And you really do have a choice, Brother Mark, which is evidence that scientific materialism is a questionable assumption.
      Humans have limited senses. We can only see a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum. We can hear only a portion of the sound frequencies that exist. It seems unlikely that we’re capable of detecting all the fields that exist. My take on things allows me to choose to believe that there is a field of intelligent consciousness that delivers free will and true personhood to all of us. Materialism assumes that we are not truly conscious people, we have no free will, and we live lives devoid of any purpose other than neoDarwinian propagation of our genes. I don’t think that worldview fits the evidence, especially if you’re able to fully understand the complexity of the information in our genes. DNA is one of the most glaring evidences of the intelligent nature of the Universe. As a scientist, it is my opinion that 13.9 billion years isn’t enough time for random mutations to have written our genetic code.
      I’m glad you’re still listening to Stephen Meyer’s book. You may not change your mind about materialism, but you will likely understand that scientists like me who don’t buy the mainstream’s meaningless universe are worthy of genuine intellectual respect, not the widespread sarcasm that implies we’re unscientific and ignorant. Only 2/3’s of today’s scientists are atheists. And at least one prominent atheist, the philosopher Thomas Nagel, has written an entire book, “Mind and Cosmos,” in which he explains “why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false.” Like Stephen Meyer’s book, that was a memo that the mainstream scientific community didn’t appreciate at all.
      You’re welcome for my time. It’s quite valuable to me these days.
      You have a great day, too, Brother:)

  6. Again very well said my friend.
    It’s funny, yesterday I was looking at the rejection letter Einstein got from the university of Bern on June 6th, 1907.
    “…Overall, we find your assumptions to be more artistic than actual Physics”.
    Signed by the Dean of Sciences Pr. Wilhelm Heinrich , Ph.D. …!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s