I have been doing academic research on human biology for the last seven years, nearly every single day of my life since I started has been spent reading studies, taking notes, cross referencing, and then using that data in my personal life and to further my research. In my notes on gut health and microbial pathogens alone I have 717 studies. I have used more than 1,500 in the course of writing my books.

Most people’s brains blow up when they start trying to read studies. Big words like Low Molecular Weight Tyrosine Phosphatases or Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans means nothing, and the words staring back from academic research might as well be a 5,000 piece puzzle with no reference image.

What is most puzzling to me is how people can hear me effectively use these kinds of words and still think I don’t know what I’m talking about. That because they heard something on facebook or a TV commercial that they know more than actual scientists who write actual academic studies from where I get my information. The truth is, I don’t really know what I am talking about, and yet I know more about health than most people on this planet, including 99% of doctors. Human health is so complex and involves chemistry, biology, and even physics, and the reason that we have not even made a dent in the epidemics of diabetes, autism, cancer, and depression is that nearly the entire medical and pharmaceutical profession don’t understand human health either. If they did, these diseases would not exist.

A theme which I have seen in all academic research is a search-and-test strategy not unlike a young child pretending to cook for the very first time. Formulating a hypothesis researchers set up experiments, often using live animals, test certain conditions on those animals, and then record the results. It is done this way because it has been done this way for hundreds of years, and not much has changed at all in the scientific process of medical discovery except the sensitivity of measuring instruments.

The problem with this tradition of scenario testing is that knowledge of underlying and relevant chemistry and physics does not lead these experiments. Even very intelligent and capable researchers are basically just throwing things together to see what they do. This is not actually good scientific research. After years of academic study you should know what these things do. It’s akin to a mathematician throwing together random numbers to look for solutions to complex physics problems. You can’t find the answer if you don’t first understand the constituent parts, and when you do know those constituent parts you can put them together in equations on purpose to find an outcome.

Scientific medical research must become more purposeful and less reliant on nebulous and unreliable live test subjects. All molecules and elements, those things which make up all life, behave in finite ways, and understanding how they behave is the key to unlocking the secrets of human health and wellness, and understanding those concepts are what have led me to uncover the cures for diseases like depression, hair loss, thyroid disease, and cancer. In this context human health is really not that complicated, because there is only one way that things work. Ideologically grasping onto what we think is true though can sabotage your entire quest to discover, however, because if you are wrong you then get locked into efforts and conceptions which are not actually right. Any time a researcher, doctor, or other supposed authority talks about science as if it is truth it immediately betrays ignorance and lack of authority, because we as a mortal human cannot ever be entirely sure we are right. We can only be pretty sure. That’s why scientific greats like Stephen Hawking admit when they are wrong. Someone who understands this reality is far more likely to know what they are talking about than someone who dogmatically and hysterically claims absoluteness.

Ask why things work, not just how. Research the chemical purpose of nutrients, molecules, and elements, not the response of live organisms to arbitrary laboratory conditions. It will mostly be a waste of time. For instance, the entire history of believing that high fat diets are harmful was shown instead what could have been easily intuited that the harm is not from high fat but instead artificially limited diets of laboratory conditions not physiologically reasonable for living creatures, and the effects of a high fat diet are alleviated with the addition of sugar. This should have been obvious to people who spend years in research and academic study if they knew how these nutrients behave in the body and their physiological purpose. But instead are driven by moral and ideological biases and sought to prove those prejudices, and so we are all still burdened by diabetes, depression, and cancer.