We Can Rebuild Her
Better than she was before… Better, Stronger, Happier. A Breast Cancer Journal

Mind, Matter and Mem-brains

We know that living organisms must receive and interpret environmental signals in order to stay alive. In fact, survival is directly related to the speed and efficiency of signal transfer. The speed of electromagnetic energy signals is 186,000 miles per second, while the speed of a diffusible chemical is considerably less than 1 centimetre per second.

Energy signals are 1000 times more efficient and infinitely faster than physical chemical signaling. What kind of signaling would your trillion-celled community prefer? Do the math!

I believe the major reason why energy research has been all but ignored comes down to dollars and cents. The trillion-dollar pharmaceutical industry puts its research money into the search for magic bullets in the form of chemicals because pills mean money. If energy healing could be made into tablet form, drug manufacturers would get interested quickly.

Bruce Lipton, Ph D. The Biology of Belief, 2005.

You can get a good glimpse of a revised understanding of science and how it applies to daily life in this fabulous talk.

More Borrowed Words here.

Andrea Posted by Andrea June 11, 2010

June 11, 2010 at 2:59 pm.

5 comments

  • http://penmachine.wordpress.com/ Derek K. Miller

    Sorry, this is a bit of a biology-major rant, but I need to rant it.

    I believe the major reason why “energy research” has been all but ignored is that — regardless of anyone's opinions about energy signals (by which I'm inferring electromagnetic ones) — actual biological cells communicate almost entirely by chemical and electrochemical means, i.e. the “slow, inefficient” way, in Bruce Lipton's terminology. The kinds of phenomena he talks about and advocates don't stand up to scrutiny.

    It might be nice if living cells used a faster method, but they don't. Living organisms don't contain fibre optics or natural copper wires. And evolution has managed to craft some pretty effective hacks around those inefficient chemical signalers. Witness how fast your hand involuntarily pulls away from a hot stove when you touch it — those are electrochemical neurons and muscle fibres working, in fractions of a second.

    Electrochemical and chemical signals are also much less prone to interference from the outside world. Imagine if organisms were thrown out of whack by solar flares, sunspot activity, cosmic rays, lightning, and other natural phenomena the way many of our electronics are. (Never mind what all our newly-developed electromagnetic emissions would do.) Maybe one reason most organisms have never developed “energy signaling” is that chemical signaling is more robust.

    It is true that, as Lipton points out, in recent decades scientists have come to understand that the expression of our genomes is much more complicated than the older “blueprint” view: the whole field of epigenetics arises from that. But Lipton is taking that emerging understanding (or actually, an outdated misunderstanding of it) and running off into the countryside, like the cranks who throw out terms derived from quantum physics to explain spirituality.

    Scientists who actually study this stuff rigorously — genetic expression, developmental biology, disease, the effect of mind on the body — don't take Lipton seriously. And, I think, with good reason. He hasn't published anything in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal in almost 30 years, and appears not even to be up-to-date on the current science in genetics. (I notice he pronounces “genome” wrong, which is a bad sign.)

    He may write some pretty prose, and give a good speech, and look like a professor, but what he's doing now is selling books and videos. He tells a good story, but I don't think he's advancing our understanding of our bodies or those of our relatives throughout the biological world at all.

    Okay, rant over.

  • http://www.WeCanRebuildHer.com Andrea Ross

    Thanks for sharing your take on this, Derek.

    As an applied-math/computer-science major, I could easily be convinced by either of you.

    But as a human, I love this “crank”s passion, conviction and optimism. Making room for positive possibilities makes me happy. It encourages me to practice better mental hygiene. It gives me hope. All of which make the present-moments of my life better.

    And btw: I've always been very disciplined about my own physical care (diet, exercise, physical environment,..). I've allowed a much unhealthier perceptive environment (leaving myself open to major stress, operating on fear, self-criticism, self-disgust, you name it). I got cancer. Many junk-food-eating-couch-potatoes didn't.

  • http://www.wecanrebuildher.com Andrea

    Thanks for sharing your take on this, Derek.

    As an applied-math/computer-science major, I could easily be convinced by either of you.

    But as a human, I love this “crank”s passion, conviction and optimism. Making room for positive possibilities makes me happy. It encourages me to practice better mental hygiene. It gives me hope. All of which make the present-moments of my life better.

    And btw: I’ve always been very disciplined about my own physical care (diet, exercise, physical environment,..). I’ve allowed a much unhealthier perceptive environment (leaving myself open to major stress, operating on fear, self-criticism, self-disgust, you name it). I got cancer. Many junk-food-eating-couch-potatoes didn’t.

  • http://penmachine.wordpress.com/ Derek K. Miller

    I don't doubt that our mental states affect our bodies, and vice versa — because our minds are part of our bodies. And that trying to find positive ways of thinking and feeling can help with our cancer treatment and recovery. I just think Lipton is describing mechanisms for that action that don't have evidence behind them. (Some of his ideas remind me too much of “The Secret,” which I think is not only wrong, but actively harmful to people's approach to the world.) And I don't think we should place too much blame on our mental states either.

    It is frustrating as hell when you live a good life, don't eat badly or smoke or abuse your body, and then get cancer, when other people who are junk-foodie couch potatoes sucking back two packs a day with beer chasers don't. I remember getting news of my cancer and thinking, “Hey! I've already had diabetes for more than 15 years, and I didn't do anything to deserve that either! I thought I hit my serious-disease quota!”

    But so much doesn't work that way, and I knew that was silly thinking: it's a just-world fallacy. There's no reason to think it's our fault we have cancer because we are too stressed, or too negative, or for not eating quite perfectly, or whatever. Sometimes (a lot of the time) people get cancer, or another serious disease, randomly. And not everyone who's a lifetime smoker and eater of fatty foods gets lung cancer or emphysema or heart disease either, even if they worked cleaning up nuclear reactors on the side. (More of them will than average, but it's still not everybody in that group. Similarly, fewer people with healthy lifestyles will get sick, but some of us still will.)

    I got colon cancer, and everyone, doctors included, was surprised. I was way too young (the vast majority of people who get it are over 50, and I was 37), it doesn't run in my family, I had a healthy lifestyle. I've never looked for anyone or anything to blame, except perhaps random malfunctions in cell replication in my intestines, or maybe some predisposition nobody knew was there — and which no one has been able to find yet, despite genetic testing.

    It's like I got struck by lightning, or happened to get hit by a meteor, or had a weakened tree branch fall on me. Sometimes shit just happens, and then we work with the consequences. While I think it's valuable to try to find happiness in my life now (whether that actually affects the progress of my disease or not), I don't think it does me any good to worry whether I might have done something to cause it, because there's nothing obvious there.

  • http://www.WeCanRebuildHer.com Andrea Ross

    Derek,

    I'm considering changes to my physical and mental care for the sake of prevention, rather than blame. I'll never know what caused my cancer, but it seems that keeping on with my previous physical and mental habits gives me the same chance of landing in this situation again. As Einstein says. Of course, Einstein said it better.

    I think you good, healing vibes every single day. You may not think it does you any good, but I do.