The "Care" Effect

I have spent a considerable amount of my nursing career studying, accumulating information, practicing and  experiencing healing philosophy and giving statistical based lectures about the power and efficacy of alternative and complimentary medicine.  Research and statistics backed me up.  One such statistic  was: $34 billion dollars is spent annually out of pocket on treatments and non conventional approaches.  As I espoused these statistics to interested health professionals (I thought they were interested-- otherwise why would they take the trouble to come and hear a talk on this?) I could see these facts, wash over their high-browed craniums like an air current over the body of a soaring plane.  Very seldom did I see little pocket of air form within them expand as the information was delivered. Which made me think, their interest wasn't so much in these soft medicine facts and treatments as much as the money that wasn't reaching their pockets.  Then I thought I wasn't presenting well, it was too much "other" information, which although was factually undeniable, was unfamiliar.  They couldn't relate, even though I took great pains to give them statistics and research which were immediately relateable (dollar and cents).  As medical professionals, we are told it's all about evidence-base.  But obviously not, as they weren't assimilating it.  Finally, I decided the stars were not aligned, corporate medicine wasn't ready to take the leap to move toward including these practices, despite the facts.

To be fair, this information on alternative and complimentary medicine has been heard, but in corporate medicine terms.  Integrative medicine centers, associated with major medical institutions, have been formed, in fact it's a big trend at the moment. These centers obviously need financing, and they often get this through donors with deep pockets.  Their continued growth and success is also obviously necessary, so revenue generation is required.  They figured out how to get insurance to pay for treatments (ie: MD provided acupuncture, MD provided health coaching, packaged lifestyle behavior modification classes as prescription). Ok. So, we're moving along, right?

The issue I take in the current approach of integrating conventional with alternative medicine is that it is construed from the old model of practicing medicine.  It's based on Descartes's original and ever present philosophy that we can be deduced down to separable parts and the ill parts can be managed as they need to be, not in relation to the entire person.  This isn't Whole thinking, an approach based on Oneness.  Complimentary, alternative, integrative medicine becomes a "specialty" and is worked into an outdated paradigm that hasn't been effective for almost forever, has always been hugely expensive and ultimately becomes a tepid healing (because it is not based on relationship).

In his article, Forget the Placebo Effect: It's the 'Care Effect' That Matters   Nathanael Johnson makes a case for a soft medicine approach, stating research that shows kindness and a deeper listening skill used by practitioners is actually extremely effective in promoting best outcomes.  What Descartes discounted was the power of trust and relationship in healing.  He was all about promoting curing and hard facts of using a fully scientific approach (in his time, excluding church/religion/spirituality as a useful influence).  And in 15-20% of illness, he's spot on.  If you have a broken leg, saying prayers over it probably won't fix it, a good surgeon would be useful.  However, the rate of healing of this broken leg may vary depending on soft medicine interventions.  Using the science knowledge of positive attitude, mobilizing the parasympathetic nervous system to off-set the sympathetic in the crisis of the trauma gets our blood cells working optimally, reduces "emergency" hormones coursing through the body (an obstacle to healing) and makes us generally feel a lot better than taking pills dealing with anxiety and even pain.  Hippocrates had a more whole healing perspective, an example of a well rounded physician.  Probably Descartes was alive at a time of great political upheaval and was able to establish the model we practice today. Today, we train a lot of doctors in this country and extremely few of them become physicians (whole healers).

In 80-85% of all illness (chronic in nature) a non-conventional approach is mandatory for there to be a healing.  Because medicine has become so militarized and corporate, we are embedded in systems and bureaucracy that aren't meant to budge easily.  There is little flexibility, not much innovation (outside of technology) in approaching what has become the business of health.  The hierarchy is ever present:  hard science is best, soft medicine is tolerated and not really seen as an ever important adjunct to the full and effective treatment of human beings. Respect for knowledge is assumed.  Respect for relationship is (generally) not important.  It is this that is at the base of all healing, it is this that must be cultivated in medicine today.  Of course knowledge and skill are vital.  But without an empathic presence, a fuller present intelligence, a greater skill at listening, knowledge and talent are marginal in the forum of healing.  These skills make our healers (doctors, nurses, therapists) whole in service to others and (great empathy and deep listening) is also in its nature, a reciprocal action, a healing of oneself.

"The 'care effect'—the idea that the opportunity for patients to feel heard and cared for can improve their health. Scientific or no, alternative practitioners tend to express empathy, to allow for unhurried silences, and to ask what meaning patients make of their pain. Kaptchuk's study was a breakthrough:  It showed that randomized, controlled trials could measure the effect of caring. But there was already abundant evidence from nursing science to suggest a healing power in the interaction between practitioner and patient."*

Can this "care effect" proliferate in the old paradigm?  The old paradigm being a corporate compliance-based entity with iron-clad legal implications at every turn?  Nurses, as indicated in the quote above have seen and implemented this "care effect" through the ages but in the old paradigm model, have continually seen it tie their hands as restrictions and standard measurements of care become narrower and more prevalent.  They are expected to ever increase their "caring" while also being required to take on more and more responsibilities (same for MDs as well).  It is unrealistic.  It is not looking at either the whole nurse/doctor or the whole patient and probably the whole system.  Caring becomes a commodity in an uncaring, sometimes hostile environment.  This is not an environment or system that can sustain true empathy nor deep listening.  This is not a paradigm that can provide truly integrative services. This paradigm is broken.

Caring and empathy is a deep part of our humanity.  When it begins to be measured in "accountability" terms like a bookkeeper's numbers, we begin to have a problem that soon turns to dysfunction.  Healing is an often mysterious, varied and flexible process that was never meant for Descartes's small pigeon-hole formula.  We have to take a risk that a new paradigm can sustain an excellence and affordability in healthcare.  We have to have a more empathetic and fluid paradigm to work from.  That paradigm is currently unknown, which is a scary prospect for the millions of people who depend upon a working healthcare model.  But otherwise, we are putting a square peg in a round hole and trying to make it fit.  The body itself might have lessons for us to glean in how to develop a new paradigm.  The fact that the Central Nervous System has these different and varied aspects (sympathetic and parasympathetic) that work together to help us to be whole, is possibly something akin to developing a paradigm that can do the same for our healthcare delivery.  Something to ponder.

*Forget the Placebo Effect: It's the 'Care Effect' That Matters | Wired ...

Trojan Wurst III: Organic

We live in a world driven by trends.  Organic food (and product) has been one such trend in this country. There are proponents and antagonists in relation to the organic movement; and these factions are militant to their respective points of view.  I hope to put forth some data in this post for clarification on both sides of this issue.

Some antagonists (let's call them "A" camp) state that these trends show a marketing triumph over science reality.  Also, that science evidence is usurped by the philosophy of organic practice.  See:

No Health Benefits from Organic Food

What does this mean?  Let’s look at the practices.

The word "organic" refers to the way farmers grow and process agricultural products. Organic farming practices are designed to encourage soil and water conservation and reduce pollution. Farmers who grow organic produce and meat don't use conventional methods to fertilize, control weeds or prevent livestock disease. For example, rather than using chemical weedkillers, organic farmers may conduct more sophisticated crop rotations and spread mulch or manure to keep weeds at bay.

Here are some key differences in these farming methods:

Conventional	Organic
Apply chemical fertilizers to promote plant growth.	Apply natural fertilizers, such as manure or compost, to feed soil and plants.
Spray synthetic insecticides to reduce pests and disease.	Spray pesticides from natural sources; use beneficial insects and birds, mating disruption or traps to reduce pests and disease.
Use synthetic herbicides to manage weeds.	Use environmentally-generated plant-killing compounds; rotate crops, till, hand weed or mulch to manage weeds.
Give animals antibiotics, growth hormones and medications to prevent disease and spur growth.	Give animals organic feed and allow them access to the outdoors. Use preventive measures — such as rotational grazing, a balanced diet and clean housing — to help minimize disease.

Of all the reading I did for this post, the polarized factions could only agree on seemingly one thing: Organic agriculture's most relative contribution is that it’s about the relationship of farming to the social and biological environment as a whole, not just to one's immediate biology (the food itself). Aside from antibiotic resistant bacteria, this is in regards to broad ecological impacts of pesticide use, soil quality, erosion and runoff, eutrophication of bodies of water, social and economic consequences of the scale of farming, fossil fuel consumption, air pollution, substitution of capital for labor. Whether that particular head of broccoli has as many vitamins as the next one is not the issue (says the A camp).

The "O" (organic) camp claims organic strawberries look and taste better, have higher levels of vitamin C and other antioxidants, are larger and have a longer shelf life before going bad. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.
1371/journal.pone.0012346*.  (My personal experience is organic strawberries are a lot smaller, much more flavorful and have an extremely short shelf life -- like a day, two days max.  But the flavor! worth their seeming delicate naturalness).  The O-camp also say organic vegetables generally contain higher amounts of minerals and weigh more than conventionally grown ones, organically produced animal meats contain more polyunsaturated fatty acids, and 94-100% of organic grown foods do not contain any pesticide residues.  “Ecological and agronomic research on the effect of fertilization on plant composition shows that increasing availability of plant available nitrogen reduces the accumulation of defense-related secondary metabolites and vitamin C, while the contents of secondary metabolites such as carotenes that are not involved in defense against diseases and pests may increase.  A meta-analysis of the published comparisons of the content of secondary metabolites and vitamins in organically and conventionally produced fruits and vegetables showed that in organic produce the content of secondary metabolites is 12% higher than in corresponding conventional samples ( P< 0.0001)."*  Agroecosystem Management and Nutritional Quality of Plant Foods: The Case of Organic Fruits and Vegetables (www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07352689.2011.554417).  This site includes a meta-analysis of the published comparisons of the content of secondary metabolites and vitamins in organically and conventionally produced fruits and vegetables and a computer modeled benefit outcome on antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

I include here some of the literature I looked at. In this reading, I became almost more interested in how the research and evidence based inquiry was done and reported, more than the subject matter.  It was like looking at most political discourses; there were almost always two camps with opposite opinions and opposite findings.  There was pointing of fingers in regards to primary investigators on a research study (ie:  "Illegitimate! the author works for Big Tobacco").  Transparency seemed to be no where near an objective.  See ** below. Both factions have an obvious incentive to slant the results of whatever study toward their own bias. (http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/09/stanfords-spin-on-organics-allegedly-

tainted-by-biotechnology-funding/).

There are apparently many flaws in the way studies evaluate their data. For example:

- The (A camp's) nutritional analysis appears to favor specific nutrients that were found in similar levels in both conventional and organics, and ignores nutrients that occur in higher levels in organics. Studies of conventional versus organic nutrient levels have been done, and according to at least one published survey of these studies (http://www.ncl.ac.uk/afrd/research/publication/168871), organic produce contain about an average of 12% more nutrients than conventional produce. See also: 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/stanford-organics-study-public-health_n_1880441.html

- The amounts of pesticides and other harmful chemicals in the food were not considered in the analysis. Both organic and conventional foods have these (organic in trace amounts), and naturally conventional foods have much higher levels. But in the analysis the amount and number of kinds of pesticide found was not factored in; only whether or not any pesticide at all was found. See (http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/five-ways-stanford-study-underestimates-organic-food)

- The comparative percents of conventional versus organic foods containing pesticides was also misrepresented; the report states that conventional food is 30% more likely to contain them. But the numbers in the details of the report show that 7% of organic foods sampled contained pesticides compared to 38% of the conventional foods. That’s a factor of more than FIVE times greater chance of conventional food containing the pesticides, not to mention that they are in much higher levels on conventional products compared to their organic counterparts.

Rodale web published an article entitled: "Lower Taxes! And 4 Other Surprising Reasons to Save the Earth by Going Organic" (attention grabbing!). Another aspect of organic that is less obvious. They say organic is tax saving because:

"Chemical farming kills jobs. Another perk of organic farming? Labor inputs are 15 percent higher, compared to chemical farms, writes Rodale in Organic Manifesto, which means the organic sector creates more jobs. Many farmers are talked into using agrichemicals because they're told it will make their jobs easier by saving labor—which means fewer farm jobs. But the fact of the matter is, the use of these chemicals is creating "superweeds" that are starting to outwit chemical pesticides.

• There's an experiment going on…and all of us are the guinea pigs. GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, have infiltrated every aspect of our food systems, without ever having been evaluated for their effects on human health. Now that some research is being done (in spite of aggressive tactics by agribusiness to prevent all testing), researchers are seeing signs that GMOs cause organ failure, digestive diseases, even accelerated aging. More studies need to be done to understand how GMOs affect human health, but in the meantime, buying organic is the best way to stop being used as a lab rat.

• You can still eat pineapples and bananas. There are good reasons to seek out food that's grown locally—you support your local economy, you cut down on the fossil fuels needed to bring it to your table, you may even be able to talk to the grower find out how it was produced. But giving up, say, bananas or avocados because they can't be grown where you live is not a step many people want to take. Choose organic, though, and you shrink the carbon footprint of your favorite long-distance treat. "Numerous studies have shown that organic is much more critical when it comes to carbon than local," writes Rodale. That's because the production, shipping, and application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides are among the most energy-intensive farming practices. Organic methods bypass all that and, as mentioned, keep greenhouse carbon out of the atmosphere. Organic AND local is the gold standard, but organic food has a smaller carbon footprint than its local but chemically grown counterpart."

Science, research, evidence base-- it all is questionable, even when the "facts" are laid out, seemingly plain as day.  One sleuths for hard facts and everything appears to be hidden behind mirrors and smoke screens.  Where is Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson when you need them?  Where is transparency?

other sources:
**http://www.agronomy-journal.org/index.php? and ”
http://www.naturalnews.com/037108_Stanford_Ingram_Olkin_Big_Tobacco.html

option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/agro/2009019&Itemid=129

and

http://www.cargill.com/corporate-responsibility/environmental-sustainability/environmental-partners/stanford/index.jsp

http://www.responsibletechnology.org

Farm Use of Antibiotics Defies Scrutiny.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/benbrook_annals_response2012.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ng33933p56368477/


http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034953


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7365/full/nature10388.html

Trojan Wurst II: SALT

salt pyramids

Salt is salt is salt: it's all sodium chloride, some say.  But in my experience (from an energetic point of view), this is not so. Culinary wise, there is also a big difference between gray sea salt, Himalayan (pink) salt and regular processed table (rock) salt and how they each impact the foods we use them in.  Seasoning wise, brand-named table salt and all other white salts require a heavier use then either the gray or pink. What is the scientific explanation regarding the differences in salts and the biologic evidence in our organism's need for salt?

Salt is a trace mineral required for our body's optimal health.The ions in trace minerals function by maintaining the body system at a cellular level. They promote balanced electrolytes, maintain your body in homeostasis, maintain fluids, and replenish your supply of electrolytes when you perspire excessively. These trace minerals perform a number of other important functions: they help regulate body water content, absorption of food particles through the intestinal tract, assisting in the generation of hydroelectric energy in the cells of your body, promoting vascular health, regulating your sleep, and promoting a healthy pH balance in your cells, mainly your brain cells. Along with water, salt is essential for the regulation of your blood pressure.

Table Salt (rock or white)
Salt has gotten a bad rap for several reasons, probably because the salts we mostly consume are chemically treated and processed, have little nutrtional value and burden our body systems (causing edema and cardiac muscle and vessel strain). For example, typical table salt crystals are totally isolated from each other. In order for your body to try to metabolize table salt crystals, it must sacrifice tremendous amounts of energy. Inorganic sodium chloride can keep the body from establishing an ideal fluid balance and can overburden your elimination systems. When your body tries to isolate the excess salt, water molecules must surround the sodium chloride to break them up into sodium and chloride ions in order to help your body neutralize them. To accomplish this, water is taken from your cells in order to neutralize the unnatural sodium chloride. This results in a less-than-ideal fluid balance in the cells. In addition, today's chemically treated/processed table and cooking salt is void of vital trace minerals.

Mined salt, or rock salt, is a poor substitute for the more natural salts available. While natural rock salt comes close to being intact and is more valuable than industrial table salt, from a biophysical as well as bio-chemical perspective, it holds little value. The elements contained in rock salt lack sufficient compression to be included in the crystal web, but are only attached to the surface and in the gaps of the crystalline structure. It is the considerable pressure that brings the elements to a colloidal state - where your cells can readily absorb them. The valuable elements found in rock salt are useless because your body cannot absorb and metabolize them.

Gray (Sea) Salt

Most gray sea salt comes from the Brittany region on the Atlantic coast of France. It is gray because it absorbs minerals from clay that lines the salt ponds. Neither gray sea salt nor Himalayan pink salt goes through the extensive refining process that ordinary table salt does before being sold in U.S. markets. As a result, both types of salt are coarser, more natural and more flavorful than traditional U.S. table salt. Both salts are harvested by hand using traditional methods, rather than by industrial machinery. Grey sea salt is obtained from the evaporation of seawater and used for culinary purposes only.

Many people believe sea salt is a healthy alternative to table salt, but this is no longer the case. The oceans are being used as dumping grounds for harmful toxic poisons like mercury, PCBs and dioxin. Reports of oil spills polluting the sea are becoming more frequent. With some 89% of all the sea salt producers now refining their salt.  Between the over processing and pollutants, today's sea salt simply isn't as healthy as it used to be.

Sea salt's molecular structure isn't conducive for elemental collaboration. If you were to look into a microscope at sea salt, you would see it has irregular and isolated crystalline structures disconnected from the natural elements surrounding them. Thus, however many vital minerals it may contain, they cannot be absorbed by your body unless the body expends tremendous energy to vitalize them. Your body's net gain is small compared to the great loss of energy.

Pink Salt (Himalayan or Crystal)
This salt, harvested in the salt mines in Tibet and what is now Pakistan, is rich in minerals such as calcium, potassium and iron. The high iron content is what gives this salt its pink color. Himalayan Pink Salt is "an exceptionally mineral-rich whole food that is 100 percent natural, unprocessed, unrefined and unpolluted. Because nothing is added - no anti-caking agents, no chemical cleaners or other ingredients.  Whereas Gray sea salt is for seasoning only, Pink salt can be used to great effect in baths.  The harmonious nature of Himalayan sea salt helps support the immune system and is considered heart healthy.

Under an electron microscope, pink salt has a perfect crystalline structure and is immune to electromagnetic fields (hence the popularity of putting "pink salt lamps besides computer stations- they ionize the immediate field you are working in, decreasing the electromagnetic impact you are exposed to). Crystal Salt contains no environmental pollutants. This salt's unique cell structure is energetically vibrational and its minerals and trace elements are so small your cells can easily absorb them. Pink salt's assortment of elements form a compound in which each molecule is inter-connected. This allows the vibration component of the 84 trace elements in the salt to be in sync with each other and can be easily metabolized by your body. When you use this salt it has a vital energetic effect. Your body gets an ample net gain with little energy loss.

Pink salt has spent over 250 million years maturing under extreme tectonic pressure, far away from exposure to impurities. The salt's unique structure also stores vibrational energy. All of the crystal salt's inherent minerals and trace elements are available in colloidal form -- meaning they are so small your cells can readily absorb them.This salt does not burden your body as other salts do for this reason. It is very difficult for your body to absorb too much since there are efficient and effective feedback loops that regulate this process in the body.

Both Gray and Himalayan salts are more costly than rock/white salt.  Possibly, this fact is relative considering their superior health benefits and less amount needed when seasoning. For cardiac patients who have been told to eliminate their salt intake, the fact that pink salt is a heart healthy version that not only supports the immune system but cardiac health, is a welcomed fact.

So, salt isn't just sodium chloride. It's not a negligible food item, but is supposed to contain vital trace minerals and energetic properties (related to its cellular structure), that depending on how it's processed, makes a difference to seasoning and your health.  When considering the type of salt needed, read labels like you read labels for food.  There are other sea salts from Spain and other countries, which are not always readily available in US markets; check how they are processed if you are considering a purchase.  There are some resources below for buying pink Himalayan sea salt in bulk; great for the bath (as well as seasoning) because of it's uniquely balanced cellular structure.  

Most of the above information was gleaned from:
http://products.mercola.com/himalayan-salt
http://www.livestrong.com/article/535896-grey-sea-salt-vs-himalayan-pink-salt/#ixzz2DKsJEAmZ 
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com

Himalayan Pink - Bath Salt - 5 lb. Bag (Fine)
Saltworks Himalayan Pink - Gourmet Salt - 5 lbs. (fine), Minerals Salts

Science Set Free

As is everything else, science is changing.  Scientists are now recognizing their playground has been constricted by assumptions that have hardened into dogmas.  Should science be a belief-system, or an exploration?  Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D (Rupert Sheldrake Online - Homepage). is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and 10 books, including  Science Set Free (September 2012), is one such scientist who is turning the dogmas of science into questions, opening up startling new possibilities.   For example, he extrapolates about several basic science beliefs:  the “laws of nature” may be habits that change and evolve. The Fundamental Constants may not be constant. Minds may extend far beyond brains. The total amount of matter and energy may be increasing. Memories may not be stored as traces in our brains.* 

For many of today’s foremost scientists, the world is a strictly material place, made up of dead matter, with no intrinsic purpose, value or meaning. Consciousness is seen as solely a physical function of the brain. Sheldrake demonstrates that these principles are not incontrovertible truths, but rather assumptions that have become dangerously constrictive to the progress of real scientific discovery. With a skepticism characteristic of true scientific inquiry, he sets his sights on ten fundamental dogmas of the science, dismantling each to make room for startling new possibilities. Sheldrake is pro-science, stating, “I want the sciences to be less dogmatic and more scientific. I believe that the sciences will be regenerated when they are liberated from the dogmas that constrict them."*   

Sheldrake compellingly argues that long-held assumptions are now limiting scientific progress and preventing us from effectively meeting the challenges of the twenty-first century. The belief system governing conventional scientific thinking has become an act of faith. His recent book points the way to a return to true science, a system based on inquiry and skepticism not blind acceptance. Some of these "blind acceptances"  he explores:

Are Memories Stored as Material Traces? Repeated failures to find physical evidence of memories etched on the brain suggest another approach is needed. Seeing memory as a resonant phenomenon, which explains the observed phenomena of collective, cultural, and generational memory, belies the idea that memory decays at death, and has profound implications for both teaching and evolution*

Are the Laws of Nature Fixed? Making universal assumptions on the basis of pre-evolutionary philosophies limits our capacity to understand change and evolution. The “laws” of nature are really more like habits—for example, crystals grow as they do because they have grown that way before.

Is the Total amount of Matter and Energy Always the Same? In the last 30 years the total amount of matter and energy recognized by physics has increased more than 20-fold. Dark matter and dark energy, whose nature is literally obscure, are now believed to make up more than 96 percent of reality. Can any of this newly-discovered energy be tapped, with revolutionary effects on the world economy?

Deepak Chopra, who published this last book of Sheldrake's, speaks warmly of his work in his blog (Deepak Chopra - Science Set Free):

"Sheldrake's essential point is that science needs setting free from ten blind dogmas. These dogmas embrace a true belief system as much as Roman Catholicism or any other faith. Behind the daily activity of gathering data, science assumes certain things about reality that, according to Sheldrake, are unsupportable. The first dogma, for example, holds that the universe is mechanical. If that is so, then everything in the universe is also mechanical, including human beings - or to use a phrase from the noted atheist Richard Dawkins, we are "lumbering robots." From a scientist's perspective, to understand everything that you need to know about human beings, you only have to tinker with all the mechanical parts of genes and the brain until there are no more secrets left.

Clearly such a view leaves no room for the soul, which becomes a wispy illusion that needs to be swept away. But then, so does the self, because there is no region of the brain that contains "I," a person. As long as "I" is a hallucination formed by complex neural circuitry, one can throw out - or reduce to mechanical operations - love, beauty, truth, compassion, honor, devotion, faith, and so on, the whole apparatus that makes a person's life feel valuable. A random universe has no purpose; therefore, giving lumbering robots a purpose is dubious."

Chopra makes a wide swing to the other pole in the above statement. Would it be possible that there lies a paradoxical truth; that is, the universe is consumately automatic in every way AND also has a mostly undisclosed potential for a resonating, full intelligence?  The impending possibility that there is no fixed "I", only the potential of one-- and truth, compassion, devotion can be as mechanical as anything else, but again, because of this universal possibility contained in consciousness, it could be otherwise.  Perhaps we are coming to: these conflicting truths exist simultaneously in all and everything. We and the universe as "systems",  embody both mechanicality and an extremely sensitive organism with a layered consciousness.

Chopra continues, "The second dogma he overturns is the belief that matter is unconscious. The whole universe is filled with atoms and molecules that have no connection to intelligence, creativity, or meaning. The problem here is that nobody can explain how atoms and molecules learned to think. No matter how closely you examine the water, glucose, and electrolyte salts in the human brain, you can't find the point where these molecules became conscious. How come the sugar water in a can of Coke isn't thinking and feeling while the sugar water in your cerebral cortex is? For science to brush this problem aside as mere metaphysics doesn't make it go away.

The third dogma is that the laws of nature are fixed and haven't changed since the Big Bang. The fourth is that the amount of matter and energy in the cosmos is always the same. And so the list grows, building toward a shocking conclusion: Science has been explaining a mirage and calling it reality. Sheldrake isn't speaking as a mystic or an enemy of science - far from it. He has kept up with the most current findings in physics and biology. Among these findings are some shattering discoveries, as far as rigid dogmas are concerned:

- The universe operates more like a living organism than a machine.
- The existence of dark matter and dark energy topples the conservation of matter and energy. Because the "dark" dimension operates outside the visible universe, the notion of fixed laws of nature suddenly looks wobbly, too.
- Purpose-driven evolution may explain life better than the random mutation of classic Darwinism.
- Genes, far from being fixed and deterministic, are involved in a far more fluid interaction than anyone ever supposed.

Sheldrake works with many more intriguing discoveries; he has a delightfully inquisitive, penetrating mind. He also seems unflappable in the face of the howling protests he has raised for thirty years, beginning when none of the above findings was even suspected. If science weren't a dogmatic belief system, there would be rational responses to his challenges rather than scorn from true believers. But a major shift is occurring. Under its title in the UK, The Science Delusion (playing off Dawkins' best-selling The God Delusion) Sheldrake's new book is getting positive reviews in high places. Even more promising, a new generation of younger scientists, who are trained (unlike Dawkins) in the shifting new realities of physics, biology, and genetics, is actually intrigued by a universe permeated with consciousness, intelligence, and meaning.

Sheldrake is merciless when it comes to dogmas being preached as if they were truths, but he has a special gentleness that rises above controversy and ill-tempered arguments. "Science is more free, more fun, and more interesting," he says, "when we turn dogmas into questions instead." Can anyone seriously disagree? The beautiful part of reading Science Set Free is the Aha! moments that come unexpectedly. All of us are living with dogmas that we accept as truths. When one of these is overturned, there's an initial gasp, soon followed by a rush of exhilaration. The point of life, as Sheldrake shows so well, isn't to set science free but to set humans free, because we are more precious than any of the false gods we have created."

 Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and 10 books, including  Science Set Free (September 2012). He was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge University, a Research Fellow of the Royal Society, Principal Plant Physiologist at ICRISAT (the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics) in Hyderabad, India, and from 2005-2010 the Director of the Perrott-Warrick Project for research on unexplained human abilities, funded from Trinity College, Cambridge. His web site is www.sheldrake.org

Much of the above material was gleaned from Science Set Free *book releases.  His book can be found: 

Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery: Rupert Sheldrake ...