Get to the bottom of what's truly healthy in this crazy complex world so you can take back what is rightfully yours. Welcome to the health sovereign podcast. This is your host, Logan Christopher.
00:18 Hello and welcome. How is your sovereignty doing? I really hope you enjoyed that previous couple episodes with my legendary guest, Peter Ragnar. We've got some more amazing interviews coming down the pipeline and we still have a few more points on the health sovereign creed to cover, which is what we'll be doing today. Probably have me interspersing these as we move forward. Without further ado, let's dive right in. We are covering points number nine and 10 today. So point number nine. I recognize that over intervening when it comes to health, especially at certain times can be worse than doing nothing. There are risks and rewards to everything, so I'll aim for the lowest scale intervention possible with any issue escalating as needed, rather than jumping straight to large impact interventions. For this one, I definitely was thinking about it beforehand to some degree, but someone that made it more clear in my mind was Nicholas [inaudible] to lab in the book.
01:27 Antifragile some of his other writings as well. I talked about him with the whole concept around antifragility as it being a really important concept, but he also addresses this one in there. So over intervening in our health, this is something that we humans are doing big time. One of the classic examples, and you can look at this in many different areas of us healthcare compared to areas across the world and this actually gets to something I think we'll be covering in the next couple of points. The difference between using technology for health versus what is actually scientific for health. But birth is a good example, a place where we over intervene. Now granted birth can be an emergency situation. Absolutely across time. I mean just look back in history. Mothers have died, babies have died. So having good health for such situations, good healthcare, good technology is important, but we have to be careful about over intervening.
02:32 So something that we do in the U S is we over intervene, we pump more drugs in to the mother, we scheduled C-sections, we do all these different things which are proven to have worse health outcomes. More babies die, more mothers die, more long-term side effects from these, I mean one thing we can talk about is that babies are meant to go through the birth can. Now granted, once again it is absolutely that we can do a C section because this can save both baby and mother and we look back in time. A lot of times unfortunately people died giving them that childbirth, but because it's great in an emergency, does that mean you should go and schedule a C-section because it's easier to do? No, it doesn't because this has very bad risks for the mother and for the baby as well. The baby is meant to go through the birth canal where is not collated with the mother's bacteria, which you can look at long-term effects of these things is going to set up that babies for all sorts of health outcomes.
03:36 If they do not get that. Now there are ways of correcting this. If that is an issue, so should a C section be necessary, they small sponge can be placed in the woman's vagina and then that placed around the mouth or the nose of the baby. This way that bacteria gets into the human body or it is supposed to be, this is something nature has designed and something that supports our health and going back to that stewardship idea, our health is not just about us humans but the colonizers of us as well. C-sections are just one example. There's so many different things we do with birth, which leads us. We do have better birth outcomes than say non developed countries, right? Yeah. If you can't get to a hospital and you need it, there can be bad things there, but compared to other developed countries, because we over intervene more, we have worse health outcomes than other such countries, and this is just one such example.
04:33 We over intervene in many other ways. People have pain in their knee, pain in their back, pain in their shoulder. Oftentimes the first thing they really do is go for surgery. Surgeons can be great. Absolutely, but to a surgeon, you have to understand they know surgeries, so a lot of things to them. They're going to say the solution is surgery. This is true of a chiropractor, right? You present some sort of problems to the chiropractor. They know chiropractic, so they're going to suggest that as an answer. I know herbs, I know all kinds of other stuff as well, and if you have some issue, I will represent some herbs that will likely help you with such a thing. It's true of all health practitioners across all modalities, but let's take an ERV versus a surgery. Obviously these have different use cases, but which one is a larger scale intervention surgery?
05:24 Absolutely. You can't undo surgery, I guess except with another surgery, what we talked about in the placebo episode or you can research yourself if you miss that one. Definitely go back and listen or search this online, got articles on it, all kinds of other stuff. Placebo surgeries often perform as well as actual surgeries. Understand this is a big thing like you've got to get prep for surgery. There are things that can go wrong. There are sponges and tools that can be left inside your body and all kinds of problems that we have certainly heard of with surgery. A surgeon can Nick an artery or lots of possible complications? Lots of possible side effects. So should we be jumping straight to a larger scale intervention? Here's the thing, the larger scale, the intervention, the higher risk that comes with it, the lower scale intervention, generally the lower risk with it.
06:17 Let's talk about herbs versus drugs. Herbs, absolutely they have side effects and some of them can be quite potent and of course there are some deadly herbs and various other materials out in nature, but the herbs that are used generally just to support health, they have some side effects, but they're mild when compared to say pharmaceutical medicine. Larger scale intervention is pharma versus a lower scale intervention, which is herps. This is not to say that you should always go for a low scale intervention. You get your arm ripped off in some sort of accident. Sorry, herbs aren't going to help you. Homeopathics aren't going to help you. Working with the showman isn't going to help you or a psychologist. You need emergency trauma medicine at that point you need to understand so much of health is not about emergency medicine. Great to have that when it's available and necessary to have that when it's available, but 99% of stuff you deal with, health is chronic.
07:16 It's not an acute, it's not an emergency, so we need to work with lesser scale interventions because if you have a surgery at like I have a friend that he blew out his knee, he's had several surgeries surrounding thing and it's still not better. Was surgery the right choice in the first place? Maybe, but it didn't go well. How many people have surgeries that do not go well? How many people have surgeries that do go well but a placebo would have worked just as well? We don't necessarily know these things, so we have to find the right place for a weaker intervention and a stronger intervention. And let me say just because it's a weaker intervention, that doesn't mean it's necessarily weak if you have a small intervention. It may be sufficient for the job. We can look at a few other areas, right, so homeopathics have just wrote a one my medical monopoly Monday musings about this topic.
08:10 Even if homeopathics were just placebo, which we can find lots of research that they are, we can also find lots of research that they are not and I fall into this latter camp. I think there is something going on there, but even if they were just placebo, then that means we can reliably get some sort of effect because placebos are shown to work. Even when people know they're placebos. When you have a placebo, which is realistically no intervention, the chance for side effects is less. Now there's the no CBO effect where you can have side effects from placebos so we do have to worry about that. But in general what is better a lower scale intervention versus a larger one. So even though placebos can have side effects, they also have really real results. In general I would say, I haven't seen a study looking at this, but the side effects of no CBOs versus like actual things is probably quite a bit less.
09:06 Let's look at a couple of other areas. How about cancer prevention or cancer screening rather? So we have tests that have been around for quite some time. Mammography doing mammograms. What is all the signs saying now that these are not actually good to do? Compressing the breast and blessing it with radiation is well it's causing cancer. Keep going and getting mammograms year after year and eventually you will find something. But here's the other thing with it to a oncologist, there's a lot of false positives in this. You don't actually have cancer but they see cancer there and then what are they going to do strong intervention through and recommend that right away we can see this and other sort of cancer screening PSA, prostate specific antigen was just seeing some articles saying that this test does not work. It is not validated, is not scientific according to the best research we have available, but many doctors are still recommending it and based off a false positive.
10:12 If there's no correlation here or very weak one, then they're going to recommend some strong interventions in order to deal with prostate cancer. Even though there may not even be cancer, there are not a problematic cancer. If you have a cancer that's never actually going to do anything to you, which seems to be the case for men and prostate issues, right? It's not going to impact them at all because they're going to die for some other reason before it actually does. Should you intervene at all with that? I would say in most cases, absolutely not. But people get paid for doing interventions. They do not get paid for doing nothing. So the profit motive comes into place with this. If we cannot understand the proper time to intervene and much more often the proper time to actually do nothing, then we cannot be as healthy as we possibly can.
11:07 So there is a time for these huge interventions and there's a time for smaller interventions and there's actually time for doing nothing. Understanding these things is key to health because the risks of doing something can actually outweigh the risks of doing nothing. There needs to essentially be a cost benefit analysis with any type of health protocol and unfortunately with many of the health modalities out there, and I'd say especially conventional medicine, I don't think we're often being given the full information about the benefits of such interventions and the risks of such interventions. So aiming for the lowest scale intervention possible with any issue. This is I think a solid health philosophy. Once again, emergency, acute trauma, your arm gets ripped off. You got to go straight and for emergency medicine in such things, but if you have pain in your shoulder, do not jump straight to surgery for that.
12:16 Have you tried all sorts of movement practices and physical therapy type things? Have you tried a different nutritional things that may get directly to the shoulders and not just orally but using topical substances as well? There are all sorts of other alternative things from STEM cells prolotherapy all kinds of different possibilities. Working with temperature, working with various types of electromagnetic frequencies as well. There's all these different interventions. I would recommend exploring a lot of these options before you go out for the large intervention of surgery. Have you looked at all the mental and emotional reasons behind such a possible injury? Because those are always there, although most people tend not to think of them physical pain. It must be a physical problem, but that's not how things work. So you really need to look at these things. But for going under the knife, cause when you cut open the body, there's possibilities of lot of things going wrong.
13:15 Thankfully there's great surgeons out there and the risks are pretty small, but still, even if the surgery is performed flawlessly, there are other issues, other possibilities of things going on with that, your body's exposed to open air. Who knows what sort of pathogens might be in the air and the hospital. Lots of things I can go around. So just it needs to be saved for its right time and place. I'm not against surgery. I'm not against pharmaceutical drugs. A large portion of them anyway. I think some definitely could be thrown out completely and that would be worthwhile to do so. But we need to understand their place, their rightful place and understanding this kind of different types of interventions and the benefits and risks of that is such a large thing. So we look at this in the intervention itself, but once again also screening for such an intervention is very helpful.
14:09 Let's move on to the next point. Number 10 I understand that you can't mess with nature without downside while doing so maybe positive in the short term. There are worse effects in the long term. Humans play on a much shorter timescale than nature of herself, which gives us another reason to strive for lower scale interventions for self and ecology. So this is built on the previous point. We like to mess with nature. There's a good reason for us doing so. The March of civilization has been to overcome the dangers of nature. Good reason to do that. But now from our position of civilization, we can look and see that there are definitely downsides to doing so that we have over intervened, not just an own personal health issues, but with nature herself with the greater ecology. So let us look at some examples of this.
15:11 I think when the best one is antibiotics, so we discovered antibiotics not even quite a hundred years ago. I believe somewhere around that time, and this really was one of the best things we have discovered in Western medicine, in my opinion, when you have pathogenic bacteria, then antibiotics can be and often are lifesaving. That's great success right there, right? To recognize, I mean how long did we go throughout history without understanding what bacteria is? Then we had a long time of not understanding what bacteria is. We still don't understand what bacteria is, to be honest. We think we know a lot, but the more we know, the more we recognize that we do not know. So we thought all bacteria was bad, let's kill all the bugs, get rid of them completely and we will be healthier for it. This is the arrogance of science. They're foolhardiness the short term thinking of science and we learn over time, so with antibiotics, this is great.
16:15 We can kill all those pathogenic bacteria. Instead of reserving this intervention for those cases where we needed it, where someone has bacterial meningitis or something and we can give them antibiotics. Then now let's use it for every little ear infection. Let's use it for common colds that are viruses, not even bacteria. We're just actually using the completely wrong weapon, so let's do it in these cases and then because we don't even recognize their beneficial bacteria, we don't recognize that there's long-term effects. That took decades for us to realize this that were carpet bombing our ecology and that there are, well maybe not acute issues with that long-term chronic issues that come, forget the exact statistics, but someone was just telling me a study saying you have antibiotics one time as a kid and you're twice as likely throughout the whole rest of your lifetime to develop diabetes.
17:12 What does bacteria have to do with diabetes? I don't specifically know the answer they have. Having investigated that one. That seems like different systems, but that's just shows they limited understanding of everything going on that can just kind of guess right here your digestion is not going as well. You have worse signaling systems throughout digestion, so this causes the hormonal thing, lean around, glucagon, insulin, that sort of thing, and then allowing the sugar into your bloodstream. All of these mechanisms get thrown off. We might also even see a negative impact from the antibiotics on the mitochondria, which are long time ago, ancient bacterial, but now symbiotic parts of ourselves, so that's a little bit antibiotics and that we're not even finished. So not only are we going to use antibiotics in those extreme cases where they're absolutely useful and warranty, we're going to use them in a whole bunch of cases where they're not necessarily warranted or it's a minor thing that the body would likely clear anyway and have long-term side effects.
18:13 But let's go ahead and use it in our animals as well. Not necessarily because they're sick. Yes, we have it then, but because we find that feed efficiency goes up. Are you familiar with feed efficiency? So this, this is a good thing to understand because it throws out the idea of that of health. Oh, weight loss, weight gain is as simple as calories in, calories out, and we can definitely throw out health beam that simple because what they found was you pump an animal full of antibiotics and on the same exact amount of calories, that same amount of feed, it is more efficient at turning into fat and muscle and mass within the animal. So you pump an animal full of antibiotics and the animal grows bigger, faster, which means because meat is sold by the pound, that you're going to be more profitable. So I'm doing so.
19:08 So here antibiotics is being used not because of the health outcomes. Yes, it's being there too, but once again, we come down to profit and this is messing with nature. This is why we see the rise of antibiotic resistance, why people are saying that we're going to enter an antibiotic resistant area where our antibiotics stop working because we knew so little about bacteria. We didn't know they could swap DNA. That one could become evolutionary leap resistant to the antibiotics and then be able to just pass this on to all the other bacteria out there. Long-term downside, we over intervene to the point where our strongest interventions may no longer work. That's a little bit about antibiotics. Let's look at some other examples. Genetically modified organisms. We look at short term, Oh we can do this and it's so obvious. All of the reasons they genetically modified organisms in the first place was not to make it any more nutritious.
20:07 Like I could understand if we had gone there, but what did we do so it had longer shelf life, the flavor savor tomato so that it was Roundup ready so that this crop could handle pesticides better. Let's genetically modify something for that. Well, are we seeing any problems with that? Definitely the science, the waters were muddied. You can find pro GMO science and you can find anti GMO sites. Which one is rec? Oh, I think you can guess which way I'm leaning, but let's not stop there. I mentioned this to Peter Ragnar the other day. The GMO of mosquitoes. Mosquitoes are a huge problem in the world causing more death than just about anything else. So yeah, looking for interventions, I can understand that. So let's you genetically modify them so that they cannot reproduce and if they do so they will die. Sounds like a good idea to our scientists, doesn't it?
21:02 What could go wrong? Lots couldn't go wrong and did so now these are not dying like the plan and this genetic modification is spreading out, making the mosquitoes as we said, more robust. Hmm. Who knows? The longer term consequences of messing with nature like this are risks and rewards. Well, the rewards are not paying out like planned and who knows the risks because we humans have a certain lifespan. We do not think that ecological time periods that mother earth is operating in, we can look at something without even necessarily talking about the genetic modification more, but just pesticide use monocrop production in the short term, these have greater yields. Y okay, you spray pesticides, you group everything together. We can increase our yield, but that's just in the short term. He can pound this. Over time, the bugs gain resistance of things the plants stopped doing as well.
22:07 You need to put more artificial phosphorus and nitrogen and all that kind of stuff in the soil. It's only thinking in extremely short term. That biz makes any sense at all. So all of these things, you can look at the short term benefit that we're going for without recognizing the long term risks. And this is what maximizing profit in the short term for the shareholders often leads us to. Or a scientist just having a great quote unquote idea and not recognizing the larger systemic effects behind it. We can see this and many other areas. Let's talk about hormone replacement. While we messed with nature, tweaking these hormones progestin that they gave to women that caused all kinds of cancer and other problems that wasn't so good. So now at least let's go in alignment with nature. Let's do bioidentical hormones works much better, but we're still seeing there's some side effects from this intervention.
23:03 So instead of Oh your testosterone's down, so let's just replace it. Not realizing there's about 50,000 different hormones. Not quite that many, but a lot of different hormones that work together in ways we do not comprehend. So what can we do to actually support the body in its own production? Let's not go there. Let's not actually address the root cause. Let's just replace the part that we deem to be missing. At least we're using the right bioidentical hormone at this point. We mess with nature a lot. I think when the best examples of this is the sun, I guess we haven't messed with the son only because it's so far away, but we've definitely messed with the idea of this sun. Understand this life would not exist without the sun. Yeah, we have some extreme of files, some bacteria down deep in the ocean where the sunlight doesn't get and whatnot, but overall life would not exist without the sun.
23:56 Humans would not exist without the sun. We could not do anything without it, but the sun is bad and we have to avoid it and if we do see it, we need to make sure that we slather chemicals on our body in which to prevent this life-giving light in entering our body. This is the kind of stuff that people believe today because we do not understand these principles, these ideas that are so, so, so very important and what is this doing longer term. So yeah, we can see effects. Obviously too much sun can be a bad thing. Too much water. You can kill yourself from drinking too much water. So overexposure to the sun, not recommending that but getting sun regularly. I am completely recommending that one. My favorite studies around the idea was that I believe it was Swedish women, they found that those that got sunburn more often lived the longest.
24:51 Once again, not recommending sunburns, but we can correlate that with these people were getting regular sun exposure. And the fact is we only get sunburned because we spend so much time indoors and not actually living into the rhythm to the cycle of life and being out in the sun when it is out there and our body's adapting to it through tanning like happens. So although more sun exposure may give you more skin cancer, it makes every other type of cancer including skin cancer, less deadly cause of the vitamin D and probably not just because of the vitamin D, there's other things, cholesterol sulfate and all kinds of other chemical reactions that are occurring because of this electromagnetic signal from the sun longterm scale. Think about this, we'd do all these things and think about just our own health, but we're seeing epigenetics is such a big thing.
25:43 So when we compound all these over interventions and all these non ecological interventions on our health, that's one thing. What about our sons and daughters? What about our granddaughters and grandsons? The effects that we're going through today on our health will be affecting them. And this is worrisome because we have over intervened and in some ways that may be too late. I don't think it actually is, but we do need to recognize that sort of possibility. We need to be course correcting now so that those future generations are more well off because we've been messing with nature and there's a downside and when you recognize that downside is coming is going to come to roots in future generations. That's why we need to be acting now on it. Sorry if that feels like we're ending a little bit on a downer but this is where we're at.
26:36 You're listening to the health sovereign podcast and recognizing where we are at is important so that we can make the proper decisions. I hope you've enjoyed this one. We'll be back next week with another interview and then finishing up the last six points in the few episodes to come. If you enjoyed this podcast, few asks of you leave a rating on iTunes. That really helps it out. It helps spread the message. Tell your friends family about this. Get more people listening and patronize the lost empire. Herbs. Herbs are a medium scale intervention, low scale intervention, but can provide absolutely great benefits to your health and performance in a variety of ways. I'll also mention if you want to work one on one with me, I do have spots open in my coaching program. It's called the virtuous vitality coaching program where we take all this health knowledge, all this wisdom, that systemic effects, looking across all different aspects of health and apply it into your life in a way that builds truly healthy health habits that will continue with you over time. As I said, there are spots available. You can check out more details@virtuousvitality.com that's going to wrap it up for now. I really hope you've enjoyed this episode. These are important principles that must be internalized to really get the benefits from them, understand the intervention, understand timescale, and act in alignment with nature that way. The more we can do that, the less downside there is for all of us. Thank you very much.
This is ThePodcastFactory.com
