Germany just switched on a revolutionary nuclear fusion machine .

You probably didn’t notice, but a few hours ago, the world took a huge step towards the goal of achieving clean, limitless energy through nuclear fusion.

Physicists in Germany announced that they’ve just fired up one of the world’s largest nuclear fusion machines for the first time – and it was successfully able to contain super-hot blobs of helium gas, otherwise known as plasma.

The 16-metre-wide machine is the Wendelstein 7-X (W7-X) and it’s a type of nuclear fusion device called a stellarator. Scientists have been talking about the enormous potential of stellarators for decades, but this is the first time a team has shown that it can produce and control plasma just as well as other fusion reactor designs.

On 10 December, the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics tweeted out thisincredible image of its new machine’s first plasma:

Nuclear fusion occurs when atoms fuse together at incredibly high temperatures and generate energy, and the reason scientists are so excited about it is because it has the potential to produce an almost-unlimited supply of energy from little more than salt water. This is the same process that’s fuelled our Sun for the past 4.5 billion years, and is predicted to continue doing so for another 4 billion years.

Unlike nuclear fission, which powers today’s nuclear power plants, nuclear fusion also doesn’t produce any radioactive waste, and is a whole lot safer.

But it’s also been incredibly tricky for scientists to achieve, because it requires them to construct a device that can produce and control a 100-million-degree-Celsius blob of plasma.

The key to controlling plasma is using superconducting magnets, and scientists have already built several working doughnut-shaped fusion reactors known astokamaks.

But there’s a big problem with tokamak reactors – they can only maintain plasma for a maximum of 6 minutes and 30 seconds at a time, which isn’t long enough to harvest significant energy. In other words, we’ve already been able to achieve nuclear fusion, but it consumed way more energy than it generated.

And this is why the launch of the stellarator is so exciting, because it’s predicted that the device will be able to control plasma for an unheard-of 30 minutes at a time.

In its first run, the machine was filled with helium – an unreactive gas – heated with a laser to around 1 million degrees Celsius. This plasma was maintained for around one-tenth of a second, which may not sound like much, but was enough to show the machine works.

“We’re very satisfied,” said Hans-Stephan Bosch, who led the team. “Everything went according to plan.”

The next step will be to increase the duration of helium plasma discharges, with the ultimate goal of building them up to 30 minutes in length. In January, the scientists will start trying to produce plasma from hydrogen, which is what would be used in a functioning nuclear fusion machine.

To be clear, the point of W7-X has never been to produce energy. This device is simply a proof-of-concept to show that the stellarator concept actually works. If all goes to plan, the things we learn from W7-X will help us build the next-generation of stellarators, which could quite literally change the world, and end our reliance on fossil fuels forever. Or as this commenter put it so perfectly on YouTube: “Help us Wendlestein 7-X, you’re our only hope.”

Skip forward to around the 23.30 mark of this live stream to see the scientists get super pumped when the machine produces plasma for the first time. What a time to be alive.

Scientists teach machines to learn like humans

Scientists teach machines to learn like humans
This paper compares human and machine learning for a wide range of simple visual concepts, or handwritten characters selected from alphabets around the world. This is an artist’s interpretation of that theme. 

A team of scientists has developed an algorithm that captures our learning abilities, enabling computers to recognize and draw simple visual concepts that are mostly indistinguishable from those created by humans. The work, which appears in the latest issue of the journal Science, marks a significant advance in the field—one that dramatically shortens the time it takes computers to ‘learn’ new concepts and broadens their application to more creative tasks.

“Our results show that by reverse engineering how people think about a problem, we can develop better algorithms,” explains Brenden Lake, a Moore-Sloan Data Science Fellow at New York University and the paper’s lead author. “Moreover, this work points to promising methods to narrow the gap for other machine learning tasks.”

The paper’s other authors were Ruslan Salakhutdinov, an assistant professor of Computer Science at the University of Toronto, and Joshua Tenenbaum, a professor at MIT in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and the Center for Brains, Minds and Machines.

When humans are exposed to a new concept—such as new piece of kitchen equipment, a new dance move, or a new letter in an unfamiliar alphabet—they often need only a few examples to understand its make-up and recognize new instances. While machines can now replicate some pattern-recognition tasks previously done only by humans—ATMs reading the numbers written on a check, for instance—machines typically need to be given hundreds or thousands of examples to perform with similar accuracy.

“It has been very difficult to build machines that require as little data as humans when learning a new concept,” observes Salakhutdinov. “Replicating these abilities is an exciting area of research connecting machine learning, statistics, computer vision, and cognitive science.”

Salakhutdinov helped to launch recent interest in learning with ‘deep neural networks,’ in a paper published in Science almost 10 years ago with his doctoral advisor Geoffrey Hinton. Their algorithm learned the structure of 10 handwritten character concepts—the digits 0-9—from 6,000 examples each, or a total of 60,000 training examples.

In the work appearing in Science this week, the researchers sought to shorten the learning process and make it more akin to the way humans acquire and apply new knowledge—i.e., learning from a small number of examples and performing a range of tasks, such as generating new examples of a concept or generating whole new concepts.

To do so, they developed a ‘Bayesian Program Learning’ (BPL) framework, where concepts are represented as simple computer programs. For instance, the letter ‘A’ is represented by computer code—resembling the work of a computer programmer—that generates examples of that letter when the code is run. Yet no programmer is required during the : the algorithm programs itself by constructing code to produce the letter it sees. Also, unlike standard computer programs that produce the same output every time they run, these probabilistic programs produce different outputs at each execution. This allows them to capture the way instances of a concept vary, such as the differences between how two people draw the letter ‘A.’

Scientists teach machines to learn like humans
Can you tell the difference between humans and machines? Humans and machines were given an image of a novel character (top) and asked to produce new exemplars. The nine-character grids in each pair that were generated by a machine are (by row) B, A; A, B; A, B. Credit: Brenden Lake

While standard pattern recognition algorithms represent concepts as configurations of pixels or collections of features, the BPL approach learns “generative models” of processes in the world, making learning a matter of ‘model building’ or ‘explaining’ the data provided to the algorithm. In the case of writing and recognizing letters, BPL is designed to capture both the causal and compositional properties of real-world processes, allowing the algorithm to use data more efficiently. The model also “learns to learn” by using knowledge from previous concepts to speed learning on new concepts—e.g., using knowledge of the Latin alphabet to learn letters in the Greek alphabet. The authors applied their model to over 1,600 types of handwritten characters in 50 of the world’s writing systems, including Sanskrit, Tibetan, Gujarati, Glagolitic—and even invented characters such as those from the television series Futurama.

In addition to testing the algorithm’s ability to recognize new instances of a concept, the authors asked both humans and computers to reproduce a series of handwritten characters after being shown a single example of each character, or in some cases, to create new characters in the style of those it had been shown. The scientists then compared the outputs from both humans and machines through ‘visual Turing tests.’ Here, human judges were given paired examples of both the human and machine output, along with the original prompt, and asked to identify which of the symbols were produced by the computer.
Scientists teach machines to learn like humans
Can you tell the difference between humans and machines? Humans and machines were given an image of a novel character (top) and asked to produce new exemplars. The nine-character grids in each pair that were generated by a machine are (by row) 1, 2; 2, 1; 1, 1. Credit: Brenden Lake

While judges’ correct responses varied across characters, for each visual Turing test, fewer than 25 percent of judges performed significantly better than chance in assessing whether a machine or a human produced a given set of symbols.

“Before they get to kindergarten, children learn to recognize new concepts from just a single example, and can even imagine new examples they haven’t seen,” notes Tenenbaum. “I’ve wanted to build models of these remarkable abilities since my own doctoral work in the late nineties. We are still far from building machines as smart as a human child, but this is the first time we have had a machine able to learn and use a large class of real-world concepts—even simple visual concepts such as handwritten characters—in ways that are hard to tell apart from humans.”

Is quantum physics behind your brain’s ability to think?

From consciousness to long-term memories, the human brain has some peculiar computing abilities – and they could be explained by quantum fuzziness

Is quantum physics behind your brain's ability to think?

MATTHEW FISHER was wary of how his peers would react to his latest project. In the end he was relieved he wasn’t laughed out of court. “They told me that this is sensible science – I’m not crazy.”

Certainly nothing in Fisher’s CV says crazy. A specialist in the quantum properties of materials, he worked at IBM and then at Microsoft’s Research Station Q developing quantum computers. He is now a professor at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California Santa Barbara. This year he won a share of the American Physical Society’s Oliver E. Buckley prize in condensed matter physics, many recipients of which have gone on to win a Nobel.

The thing was, he had broached a subject many physicists would rather simply avoid.

“Does the brain use quantum mechanics? That’s a perfectly legitimate question,” says Fisher. On one level, he is right – and the answer is yes. The brain is composed of atoms, and atoms follow the laws of quantum physics. But Fisher is really asking whether the strange properties of quantum objects – being in two places at once, seeming to instantly influence each other over distance and so on – could explain still-perplexing aspects of human cognition. And that, it turns out, is a very contentious question indeed.

EWAO Nothing is solid: This is the world of Quantum Physics

Nobel Prize winning physicists across the world have been able to prove without a shadow of a doubt that our physical world is just one large sea of energies that flash in and out of being within milliseconds in a continuous pattern.

What is the world of Quantum Physics?

One of things to know is that nothing is solid.  physicists have been able to prove that our thoughts are what put together and hold together our ever-changing energy field into physical ‘objects’ that we can see.

So how come we see a physical person instead of a cluster of flashing energy?

Attempt to look at it as a movie reel, which is a collection of about 24 frames a second.  With each frame being separated by a little gap.  Because of the speed of how one frame is able to replace another, our eyes are then cheated into believing that we are able t o see a continuous and ‘moving picture’.

Think about the way a television works.  A TV tube is just simply a tube that houses a heap of electrons that are hitting the screen in a particular way, creating the illusion of motion and form.  This is what all objects are in a way.

You tend to have 5 physical senses that consist of smell, taste, touch, sight, and sound.  Each of these different senses have a specific spectrum that they reside in (for an example, a dog is able to hear a different range of sound that we do, and a snake will see a completely different spectrum of light than we do, and so on.  In other words, your particular set of senses perceive the sea of continual energy from a certain, somewhat limited standpoint and creates an image from that.

Remember that this is not complete, nor is it accurate.  This is simply an interpretation.  All of our different interpretations are pretty much solely based on the ‘internal map’ of the reality that we have, and is not the real truth.

Our particular ‘map’ is the result of our personal life’s collection of experiences.  Our thoughts seem to be linked to this invisible energy that is determining what the energy is able to form.  Your thoughts are able to literally shift the universes on a type of particle-by-particle basis to create the physical life you see.

Start by looking all around you, everything you are able to see in our physical world started its existence and a simple idea.  An idea that was able to grow as it was expressed and shared, until it was able to grow enough and become a physical object because of a number of steps.

You quite literally become exactly what you think about the most, and in doing so, your life will become what you have believed and imagined the most.  This world become your literal mirror, enabling you to have the ability to experience the physical plane as what you hold as truth, until you change it however.

Quantum physics helps to show us that the world is not that unchangeable and harden thing that is appears to be.  Instead is it’s a place of continually flows fluidly and builds up by using our collective and individual thoughts.

It seems as if it is almost like a magic trick, that truth is really just an illusion.  Fortunately we have been able to start the process of uncovering the illusion of this physical space and most importantly, how to create change in it.

Have you thought about what your body consists of?  There are nine different systems that the human body is comprised of, such as endocrine, circulatory, muscular, digestive, reproductive, nervous, urinary, respiratory, and skeletal.  That brings up even more questions doesn’t it?

  1. What are those made up of?
  2. Tissues and organs.
  3. What are tissues and organs made of?
  4. Cells.
  5. What are cells made of?
  6. Molecules.
  7. What are molecules made of?
  8. Atoms.
  9. What are atoms made of?
  10. Sub-atomic particles.
  11. What are subatomic particles made of?
  12. Energy!

You and I are made up of pure light energy in its most intelligent and beautiful configuration.  This energy is ever changing beneath the surface and you are able to control it all with your immensely powerful mind.  You are one large powerful and stellar human being.

If you had the ability to see yourself under a very powerful electron microscope and were able to conduct other experiments on yourself, you would then be able to see that you were simply made up of a cluster of ever-changing and fluctuating energy in the form of photons, electrons, neutrons and so on.

Everything else around you is made of the same thing.  Quantum physics helps to tell us that in the act of being able to observe an object means that it to be right there and how and where we observe it.

An object doesn’t simply stop existing independently of its observer.  Through your observation and attention to anything, including your intention literally creates that thing.  This has been scientifically proven, and your world tends to consist of mind, body, and spirit.

Each of these three things, mind, body and spirit has a unique function that is highly unique to it and isn’t shared with the other.  What you are able to see with eyes and experience with your body is called the physical world which we will call the Body.  A body is an effect that is created by a cause, and this cause is thought.  The body cannot create, it can only be experienced and experience, and that is its unique function.

Though is not able to experience, it can only interpret and create.  It requires an entire world of relativity (Body, and the physical world) if it wants to experience itself.  And spirit is all that is, that which gives life to the body and thought.

Body doesn’t have the power to create, although is is able to give off the illusion of the power to do so.  This type of illusion is the cause of great frustration.  Body in its entirety is purely an effect that that laces the power to create or cause.

The key with all this information is how you learn and interact with the universe, and are able to gain the power to be able to manifest everything you truly desire and what to experience.

Watch the video. URL:

Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Godel and Turing enter quantum physics

A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable, according to scientists at UCL, Universidad Complutense de Madrid – ICMAT and Technical University of Munich.

It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.

A small spectral gap – the energy needed to transfer an electron from a low-energy state to an excited state – is the central property of semiconductors. In a similar way, the spectral gap plays an important role for many other materials. When this energy becomes very small, i.e. the spectral gap closes, it becomes possible for the material to transition to a completely different state. An example of this is when a material becomes superconducting.

Mathematically extrapolating from a microscopic description of a material to the bulk solid is considered one of the key tools in the search for materials exhibiting superconductivity at ambient temperatures or other desirable properties. A study, published today in Nature, however, shows crucial limits to this approach. Using sophisticated mathematics, the authors proved that, even with a complete microscopic description of a quantum material, determining whether it has a spectral gap is, in fact, an undecidable question.

“Alan Turing is famous for his role in cracking the Enigma code,” said co-author, Dr Toby Cubitt from UCL Computer Science. “But amongst mathematicians and computer scientists, he is even more famous for proving that certain mathematical questions are `undecidable’ – they are neither true nor false, but are beyond the reach of mathematics. What we’ve shown is that the spectral gap is one of these undecidable problems. This means a general method to determine whether matter described by quantum mechanics has a spectral gap, or not, cannot exist. Which limits the extent to which we can predict the behaviour of quantum materials, and potentially even fundamental .”

One million dollars to win!

The most famous problem concerning spectral gaps is whether the theory governing the fundamental particles of matter itself – the standard model of particle physics – has a spectral gap (the `Yang-Mills mass gap’ conjecture). Particle physics experiments such as CERN and numerical calculations on supercomputers suggest that there is a spectral gap. Although there is a $1m prize at stake from the Clay Mathematics Institute for whoever can, no one has yet succeeded in proving this mathematically from the equations of the .

Dr Cubitt added, “It’s possible for particular cases of a problem to be solvable even when the general problem is undecidable, so someone may yet win the coveted $1m prize. But our results do raise the prospect that some of these big open problems in theoretical physics could be provably unsolvable.”

“We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

Not all bad news

Co-author, Professor David Pérez-García from Universidad Complutense de Madrid and ICMAT, said: “It’s not all bad news, though. The reason this problem is impossible to solve in general is because models at this level exhibit extremely bizarre behaviour that essentially defeats any attempt to analyse them. But this bizarre behaviour also predicts some new and very weird physics that hasn’t been seen before. For example, our results show that adding even a single particle to a lump of matter, however large, could in principle dramatically change its properties. New physics like this is often later exploited in technology.”

The researchers are now seeing whether their findings extend beyond the artificial mathematical models produced by their calculations to more realistic quantum materials that could be realised in the laboratory.

Being Happy Doesn’t Really Increase Your Life Span

Being happy is nice and all, but don’t count on happiness to add years to your life — a new study finds that how happy you are doesn’t seem to affect your risk of dying early.

The study did find that being unhappy was linked with an increased risk of early death, but it turned out that this was actually because people in poor health also tend to be unhappy. In other words, poor health, and not unhappiness, was the true cause of early death, the researchers said.

“Illness makes you unhappy, but unhappiness itself doesn’t make you ill,” study researcher Bette Liu, of the University of New South Wales in Australia, said in a statement. “We found no direct effect of unhappiness or stress on mortality.”

For the study, the researchers analyzed information from more than 700,000 U.K. women whose average age was 59. The researchers asked the women to rate their happiness, and then followed up with them for 10 years.

The researchers found that 39 percent of the women said they were happy most of the time, 44 percent said they were usually happy and 17 percent said they were usually unhappy.

The women who were unhappy were 29 percent more likely to die over the 10-year period, compared with the women who were happy most of the time.

However, poor health at the start of the study was strongly associated with unhappiness, and the researchers found that, after they took into account the women’s health, the link between unhappiness and early death went away.

The study also found that some unhealthy habits, such as smoking, were linked with unhappiness, which also partly explained the link between unhappiness and early death.

“Many still believe that stress or unhappiness can directly cause disease, but they are simply confusing cause and effect,” Richard Peto, a co-author of the study and a professor ofmedical statistics and epidemiology at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, said in a statement. The new study “shows that happiness and unhappiness do not themselves have any direct effect on death rates.”

Because the study included only women, it’s not clear whether the results apply to men as well. In fact, previous studies suggested that men and women may define happiness differently and that it’s possible that happiness may be linked more strongly with an early death among men, Philipe de Souto Barreto and Yves Rolland, of the Institute of Ageing at University Hospital of Toulouse in France, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study in the journal.

The real reason your eyes go red after swimming isn’t chlorine, but urine | Sciencedump

Urine in itself isn’t harmful right? So why is the combination of chlorine and urine lethal?

Having bloodshot eyes after swimming is not as a result of chlorine but is in fact caused by urine contained in the pool, although according to a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But how you might ask? Urine in itself isn’t harmful right?

Well it’s all due to the fact that Chlorine binds with all the thing it’s trying to kill from your bodies, as a result it will form chemical irritants that are causing those bloodshot eyes. It’s the chlorine binding to the urine and sweat. But as toxicologist Alfred Bernard from the University of Leuven, Belgium, states:

Urine itself is just like any other body fluids not harmful for your skin and eyes. But once the urine comes into contact with chlorine it will react with urea, a component within sweat and urine, which creates so-called chloramines.

And these chloramines are the culprits, they are the reason why your eyes go red or cause an irritated skin. Furthermore, you can easily identify these chemicals when you are at an indoor swimming pool: they are also causing the typical indoor swimming pool atmosphere.

But what about too much chlorine in the swimming pool that is causing red eyes? Well the amount of chlorine that is laid down by law is about 0.5 milligram per liter of water. Furthermore, the amount of chlorine is in most swimming pools automatically regulated and is also manually checked several times a day in most situations. From this perspective we can state that the probability that there is too much chlorine in the water is rather small.

Global Medical Expansion Has “Made Us Sick”

The burgeoning “health” care industry has made people see themselves as sickly…

Researchers from Ohio State University had a hunch that the expansion of the medical industry has made people overall view themselves as unwell – in need of help. First psychologically, then physically.

For all the medical advancements, people are actually worse for the wear despite what the medical community itself will propagate (longer life expectancy, lower cancer rates etc). In this instance, one only need look around to see a thriving “sick care” industry, having nothing to do with reversing illness.

OSU researchers came up with some interesting analyses to determine if medical expansion has made people view themselves as unhealthy. (Does physical illness follow?) Interestingly, they also backhacked the study to see what life would be like if medical sprawl hadn’t take place.

Researchers featured in the July 2015 issue of the journal Social Science Research used several large multinational datasets to examine changes in how people rated their health between 1981 and 2007 and compared that to medical expansion in 28 countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

WIKI - Negative Pills

So, did people feel healthier? Breathe a sigh of relief as the world of medicine expanded drastically during that time? Hui Zheng, assistant professor of sociology at Ohio State, thinks not.

He says:

Access to more medicine and medical care doesn’t really improve our subjective health. For example, in the United States, the percentage of Americans reporting very good health decreased from 39 percent to 28 percent from 1982 to 2006.

Then, he did a “counterfactual analysis” using the data to see what would have happened if the medical industry hadn’t expanded at all in these countries since 1982. Health factors like economic development were left unchanged.

This analysis shows that self-rated health would have increased in these 28 countries. For example, the percentage of Americans reporting very good health could have increased by about 10 percent.

Zheng concludes:

It seems counterintuitive, but that’s what the evidence shows. More medicine doesn’t lead to citizens feeling better about their health – it actually hurts,

It appears that perception has a lot to do with health. With hope, our readers will not let outside influence gaslight them into sickness, but boldly stand on their own two feet as much as possible. You have the right to be well.

Pineapple Enzyme Kills Cancer Without Killing You

Pineapple Enzyme Kills Cancer Without Killing You

Could an extract of pineapple fruit be both safer and more effective than a blockbuster chemotherapy agent?

Every once in a while a study pops up on the National Library of Medicine’s bibliographic citation database known as MEDLINE that not only confirms the therapeutic relevance of natural substances in cancer treatment, but blows the conventional approach out of the water. Published in 2007 in the journal Planta Medica, researchers found that an enzyme extracted from pineapple stems known as bromelain was superior to the chemo-agent 5-fluorauracil in treating cancer in the animal model. The researchers stated:

“This antitumoral effect [bromelain] was superior to that of 5-FU [5-fluorouracil], whose survival index was approximately 263 %, relative to the untreated control.”

Bromelain in pineapple

What is so remarkable about this research is that 5-FU has been used as a cancer treatment for nearly 40 years, and has been relatively unsuccessful due to its less than perfect selectivity at killing cancer, often killing and/or irreversibly damaging healthy cells and tissue, as well.

As a highly toxic, fluoride-bound form of the nucleic acid uracil, a normal component of RNA, the drug is supposed to work by tricking more rapidly dividing cells — which include both cancer and healthy intestinal, hair follicle, and immune cells — into taking it up, thereby inhibiting (read: poisoning) RNA replication enzymes and RNA synthesis.

The material safety data sheet (MSDS) for 5-FU states:

Hazardous Identification

The dose at which 50% of the animals given the drug die is 115mg/kg, or the equivalent of 7.8 grams for a 150 lb adult human.

Toxicological Information

Keep in mind that a 7.5 gram dose of 5-FU, which is the weight of 3 pennies, would kill 50% of the humans given it.  Bromelain’s MSDS, on the other hand, states the LD50 to be 10,000 mg/kg, or the equivalent 1.5 lbs of bromelain for a 150lb adult, which means it is 3 orders of magnitude safer!

three pennies

How then, can something as innocuous as the enzyme from the stem/core of a pineapple be superior to a drug that millions of cancers patients over the past 40 years have placed their hopes of recovery on, as well as exchanging billions of dollars for?

There is a well-known effect associated with a wide range of natural compounds called “selective cytotoxicity,” whereby they are able to induce programmed cell death (the graceful self-disassembly known as apoptosis) within the cancer cells, while leaving healthy cells and tissue unharmed. No FDA-approved chemotherapy drug on the market today has this indispensable property (because chemicals don’t have behave like natural compounds), which is why cancer treatment is still in the dark ages, often destroying the quality of life, and accelerating the death of those who undergo it, often unwittingly. When a person dies following conventional cancer treatment it is all too easy to “blame the victim” and simply write that patient’s cancer off as “chemo-resistant,” or “exceptionally aggressive,” when in fact the non-selective nature of the chemotoxic agent is what ultimately lead to their death.

Keep in mind that bromelain, like all natural substances, will never receive FDA drug approval. Capital, at the present time, does not flow into the development of non-patentable (i.e. non-profitable) cancer therapies, even if they work, are safe and extremely affordable. This is simply the nature of the beast. Until we compel our government to utilize our tax dollars to invest in this type of research, there will be no level playing field in cancer treatment, or any treatment offered through the conventional medical establishment, for that matter. Or, some of us may decide to take our health into our own hands, and use the research, already freely available on possible natural cancer treatment, to inform our treatment decisions without the guidance of the modern day equivalent of the “priest” of the body, the conventional oncologist, who increasingly fills the description of an “applied pharmacologist/toxicologist” – nothing more, nothing less.

5 Reasons Conventional Doctors Ignore Alternative Medicine

By now, you probably have come to realize that something is not quite right with the current health care system that dominates today. It has become a dictating, disease managing, and complicated mess that has generally left more people sick than healthy. Sure, it’s great for emergency and acute care, but when it comes to eradicating disease, it hasn’t even sniffed the coffee yet.

So when other options exist, such as alternative medicine, that have proven track records for helping people actually uproot the cause of their suffering, why has conventional medicine typically deemed it as quackery?


Turns out, there are 5 main reasons.

Closed Thinkers

The selection process of medicals students is primarily dependent on college grades, which simply means regurgitating what has been taught to them by presumed authorities. If they question this knowledge or authority, their grades typically suffer which will negatively affect their ability to land a job in their profession later.

Due to this system, a medical dogma is created that is incredibly hard to break and the very thought of thinking “outside the box” brings a level of cognitive dissonance and ridicule from peers that makes it nearly impossible for medical students and doctors to consider other options like alternative medicine.

Taught To Departmentalize

Medical schools tend to be organized into organ-specific departments. The idea that there may be an underlying link to disease originating in different areas of the body is not recognized in this type of framework. The body is treated as parts that are completely independent of each other with little bearing on each others function.

This makes diagnosis much easier when you don’t need to consider other areas that could complicate a diagnosis. It also makes it easier to slap a label on a patient, prescribe a medication, and send them on their way in 7 minutes or less.

So when alternative medicine considers more holistic factors that challenge departmentalization, it is a complete culture shock to departmentalized trained students, who can’t even fathom this “subordinate” system.


With abundant financial rewards in “rescue” medicine (interventions that treat symptoms), and much less monetary value in trying to prevent illness or correct it at the root (thereby losing a “customer”), it becomes very difficult for a medical student weighed down by academic debts to choose the latter.

Considering that the top 11 drug companies globally made almost 85 billion in profit in 2012, the thought of working for any other system seems implausible from an economics standpoint. Early indoctrination, huge debts, and a much more attractive financial reward system, makes alternative medicine an option that is rarely considered.

Nutrition Education Is Non-Existent

With medical schools so focussed on learning the intimate details of diagnosing and prescribing due to the profitability of such a system, the major factor for true health gets nearly completely ignored. That component is nutrition.

Doctors study nutrition for a few hours to a few days in what is a long and arduous degree. It is a mere fraction of what they learn, so if they do want such knowledge, they are on their own to get it. However, with such a profitable system in place that relatively ignores it, most do not go out of their way to learn this cornerstone of the alternative field.

However, some doctors are being “forced” to learn more about nutrition, as patients become more knowledgeable with proven information that is being freely shared on sites such as Natural News andHealing the Body.

Too Busy To Gain More Knowledge

Becoming a conventional doctor is a long and intense process of studying, testing, and working around the clock. This intense schedule often does not abate, and could get worse, depending on the doctors success and their location. As a result of increasing demands put on them by an ever growing sick population, continuing their education is often limited and often limited to events put on or sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

This limits professional growth and keeps the doctor firmly inside the conventional system, not allowing them to expand their knowledge significantly into realms of alternative medicine, such as nutrition. As a result, they continue to learn more of the same and never are allowed to fully appreciate and understand the benefits of alternative and holistic practices.

I am happy to hear that there are some doctors currently in the system who understand the limits of conventional medicine, and as a result are incorporating forms of alternative medicine into their practice, in order to truly serve the needs of the people.

However, your absolute best solution to become well is to put the majority of the power in your hands, since you make 99.99% of your health decisions on a daily basis. All you need is a strong working knowledge and some support, and you can become much more effective on creating your own health care system in your home.

%d bloggers like this: