Because of subclinical issues, most people’s lives will be shorter lived than need be, and during life they will face unnecessary yet substantial, increased risk of chronic disease, viral infection susceptibility etc. as a result. It’s typically difficult to decipher the role of subclinical issues in premature death and increased disease-risk however. Because the contribution is over a long time period (multi-decade) and multivariate.
A major area of contribution to subclinical factors is suboptimal nutrition. For example even on an “ideal” diet, you are not likely to get enough vitamins and minerals for longevity purposes. For example zinc, selenium, magnesium, niacin – to name just a few. Present nutritional levels are not set nor tested for longevity purposes.
They are instead set for ensuring that you don’t enter an immediate, acute, disease, disability or death trajectory. So called Reference Daily Intake (RDI) and Daily Reference Values (DRVs).
Other areas contributing to subclinical factors include industrial pollutants, suboptimal exposure to sunlight, toxins, pharmaceutical drugs, biologics (e.g. vaccines).
And last but not least, because by their very definition, subclinical health issues fly “under-the-radar” because of present paradigms, or technological capabilities, or both. With that as an introduction, the reader should be better armed to appreciated what Daniel Schmachtenberger said in this clip:
… something that I’m very upset about – our entire medical paradigm, is – the topic of toxicity in general and deficiency of nutrients and pathogenicity, in terms of infection.
We don’t look at chronic subclinical issues enough. So we have a clinical definition of, okay you have a you have a clinical vitamin D deficiency, right you’ve got rickets. Well here’s the level of rickets or you have a clinical vitamin C deficiency – you have scurvy.
Well pretty much nobody gets scurvy, right? Like you have to be in some fucked up food situation you get scurvy. Which is why there are still a lot of kind of mainstream doctors who say you don’t need supplements and nobody really needs vitamin C or vitamin D or whatever.
But then you have what is the optimal level for human thriving and the healthiest people with the healthiest diets and there’s a pretty big range between the optimal level and scurvy. And if you’re here your [gestures low], docs are goanna say you’re not deficient. But you might actually be. But the deficiency means you are now acutely dying, right? You are in an acute death process directly related to this one identifiable thing.
But above that [gesture higher] you might be in a – you will probably live less long and have increased susceptibility to different kinds of diseases but you’ll never be able to track it to this because it’s your sub clinical level of vitamin C plus a vitamin D plus of a bunch of other things plus of toxicities plus of whatever right is basically just sub optimal dynamics that support overall system homeo dynamics.
When we’re looking – if we’re only looking at does this cause an immediate acute one for one thing to be able to say this was a necessary and sufficient cause of a disease, that’s just a broken model.
Which is why I think in modern medicine were quite good at solving acute causation things. If someone gets an acute poisoning or an acute injury or an acute infection we’re actually pretty good at that.
But when it comes to complex chronic illness, autoimmune disease, neurodegenerative disease, psychiatric disease, we don’t have much in the way of real cures for those things. We have symptomatic treatments and we have things that can stop certain parts of the disease pathology progression.
That’s because it doesn’t have a single cause and the cause – the many causes aren’t even the same ones; there’re different causes and [fore] different people and they’re very delayed in time so there’s a whole new model of medicine that’s needed for that.
But if I’m doing safety studies looking for a near term cause which I would always – if I am a company wanting to advance something, I don’t want to be testing something for 30 years. I don’t want to be looking at the long term all-cause mortality associated with the things.
So there’s a very real question of how do we advance – like how do we advance new things where the negative effects might be very causally delayed. But then this is where we also have to think about risk and necessity and things like that.
So do I think that the safety studies that are done are based on the wrong model of safety? Yes I think it’s the wrong model of safety.
— Daniel Schmachtenberger (Director of R&D, Neurohacker Collective)
The clip is from ‘War on Sensemaking 4: Pandemic & Conspiracy, Daniel Schmachtenberger’ (Apr 17, 2020), produced by Rebel Wisdom