Spontaneous Evolution – Review by Justin Smith

Its not often that I read a book and feel that my life will never be the same again after reading it. But this is exactly how I feel about Spontaneous Evolution by Dr Bruce Lipton and Steve Bhaerman.

The book is a delicate blend of spirituality, philosophy, evolution, medicine, biology, psychology, economics, ecology, religion, ancient wisdom, holistic health, cultural studies, political history and quantum physics. All assembled to describe where humans have got to and where we must now go in order to attain humanity.

The book is for anyone who is, say we say, uncomfortable, with the current state of world affairs. Be it economic collapse, environmental catastrophe, endless warfare, or a crisis in our health system, there has certainly been enough to occupy our consciousness in the recent past. At times, these problems do make us feel powerless and leave us wondering if humans are likely to follow the same logical conclusion and ultimate endpoint as the dinosaurs. 

However, Spontaneous Evolution provides for a more positive and optimistic future.

Lipton and Bhaerman discuss the status quo in the context of a long lasting competition between materialism and spirituality. During hunter gatherer days, humans enjoyed balance or harmony between the material and spiritual realms. We then followed a path into the spiritual realm that saw the creation of many different religions. Religion eventually received significant challenges from science, as scientific answers where provided for everyday phenomena. Eventually, science became the new religion and emphasis was placed on finding a materialistic understanding of nature.

It is difficult for us to imagine that a belief in science would have once led to imprisonment or criticism by the church. But now, not believing in science can be a punishable offense or at least banishment from scientific establishment. 

Our belief in a mechanistic materialistic science may have led the world to its current state. Our materialistic view of nature has been fuelled by Darwinism and Newtonian physics. As it turns out though, random selection or survival of the fittest does not match the reality of life. It is more accurate to say that humans have adapted to their environment as a means to survive. And Newton's Laws of Motion, despite enabling many technological advancements in the material realm, cannot even begin to explain how things work at the sub-atomic level.

Our current materialistic view of medicine has already reached a sad conclusion. Depending on which study you choose to trust, mainstream medicine is now either the first or the third biggest killer in America. Medicine is no longer about health but mostly motivated by financial profit. Pharmaceutical companies have almost reached the limit of what can be done with synthetic 'treatments'. 

This is evidenced by the lack of innovative new drugs that genuinely help people. Drug companies have been forced to change tactics. They are now focussed on spreading misinformation and disease mongering for the purpose of generating revenue to satisfy shareholders. The highly profitable cholesterol-lowering industry is a prime example of this. An acceptance of Darwinism and Newtonian principles has taken us into this direction.  

Our view that only matter matters led to the mapping of the genome. But it also led to the startling revelation that humans have no more genetic code than a worm! The complexity of a person is not solely determined by their genes.

Touching the polarities of the materialistic and spiritual realms has taught us a great deal and our next evolutionary leap can allow us to make full use of current and future technology -- but with an acceptance of the absolute reality of “the field”. 

The field is the term used by modern physicists to describe an invisible energy matrix, or what Einstein eventually described as “the sole governing agency of matter”.

Mainstream science has already taken a turn back toward spiritually through its investigation of quantum mechanics and the field. For example, we have known for some time that sub-atomic particles are influenced by the mere act of looking at them. 

This is where mainstream physics is right now, and it does not represent a departure from scientific principles, rather, an advancement of science to include the realities of the field that is acting upon matter.   

Under the dark cloud of Darwinism, humans have felt powerless to avoid the impending doom. But an understanding of where we have been and our true potential can effect the Spontaneous Evolution that is now required. 

Wider Use of Statins Should Have Been Rejeced

This week, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel recommended that the use of statins should be expanded to include people who do not have high cholesterol levels. This would make an additional six million people eligible for taking the statin drug Crestor in the USA. It will then only be a mater of time until similar recommendations are followed in the UK and the rest of the world.

This all started with a clinical trial known as JUPITER. The results of this trial where published in the New England Journal of Medicine in November 2008 (1). These results have been grossly exaggerated and serious drug adverse effects have been played-down.

It was widely reported in the media that the statin used in this trial reduced the risk of cardiovascular events by 44 percent. However, this was a relative percentage reduction. 

The reporting of relative percentages is a very common trick used by drug companies to exaggerate any slight benefits associated with their products. In reality, 2.8 percent of people in the placebo group suffered cardiovascular events compared with 1.6 percent in the statin group. So the risk for cardiovascular events was reduced by 1.2 percent, and not 44 percent!

Now, 1.2 (the actual risk reduction) is around 44 percent of 2.8 (the risk experienced by those in the placebo group), so thats where the widely reported 44 percent comes from. But patients should be told that this in reality equates to just 1.2 percent.  

But it gets worse:

If we look at what has been referred to as ‘hard cardiac events’ (heart attack, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes), 1.8 percent of the people in the placebo group suffered these events compared with 0.9 percent in the statin group (2). So, the risk for the most serious cardiovascular events was only reduced by 0.9 percent. 

And even worse:

At the end of the day, the most important thing to look at is deaths from all causes. Since, there is not much point in taking an expensive medication if the risk for one disease is reduced at the cost of increasing the risk for another disease within the same time period. In the JUPITER trial, the statin reduced the overal risk of dying by about 0.5 percent.

Again, this 0.5 percent was quoted in the media as a 20 percent relative risk reduction, which is misleading for patients.

And then the adverse effects:

In the JUPITER trial, the statin actually caused more people to develop diabetes. The researchers dismissed this as a chance finding, but this increased risk was comparable to the benefits. The number of lives saved (from all causes) was around the same number of additional cases of diabetes. 

It is often difficult for us to imagine risk as a percentage - if we imagine a theatre containing 1000 people who all take the statin for the next two years – around 5 people will have their life extended and around the same number will develop diabetes as a direct result of the drug.

The problem of course, is that an individual person has no idea if they will be one of the few people who have their life extended or one of the people who develop diabetes.  

Other studies have also shown that statins increase the risk for diabetes. This was confirmed recently by a meta-analysis (3). In this analysis, the increased risk was reduced if the WOSCOPS study was included in the analysis, but the WOSCOPS study used non-standardised criteria for diabetes diagnosis.

There are also potential unknown longer-term adverse effects. JUPITER was very short in duration (just under two years). The presence of diabetes drastically increases the risk for cardiovascular disease but these increased risks would not be seen in just two years – it would take at least two decades for us to see the effects. 

The wider use of Crestor, or any other statin, on the basis of the JUPITER trial, would, in the best case scenario, expose patients to as many risks as benefits at considerable financial cost. 

References:

1. Ridker PM et al (2008) Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. New England Journal of Medicine 359 2195–2207
2. Hlatky MA (2008) Expanding the orbit of primary prevention – moving beyond JUPITER. New England Journal of Medicine 359 2280–2282
3. Rajpathak SN et al (2009) Statin therapy and risk of developing type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 32:1924-1929

Bad Cholesterol is now Good

People take cholesterol-lowering statin drugs to reduce ‘bad’ cholesterol (LDL ‘cholesterol’), however ‘bad’ cholesterol may not be as bad as we think.  A study published in the American Heart Journal looked at the cholesterol levels of people who had been admitted to hospital in America with heart disease. The study included 136,905 people – all of these people had their LDL level measured within 24 hours of arrival in hospital. 

The graph below is taken directly from the study. I have marked on the graph the suggested ideal LDL level of 3 mmol/l (or 120 mg/dl). We are constantly told that our risk for heart disease is reduced below this level and above this level our risk increases.

We can immediately see that the majority of these people with existing heart disease had an LDL level below the suggested ideal level – LOWER levels of so called 'bad' cholesterol were much more likely to be associated with heart disease than higher levels. This of course is the opposite of what we are expected to believe.

The average LDL level for this group of people was 2.7 mmol/l (or 104 mg/dl). However, the average LDL level for the general population around the same time was 3.2 mmol/l (124 mg/dl).

If people with heart disease have lower LDL levels than the general population, then perhaps we need to rethink the policy of spending hundreds of millions of pounds on reducing LDL levels in the general population.

References: 

Carroll MD et al (2005) Trends in serum lipids and lipoproteins of adults, 1960–2002. Journal of the American Medical Association 294 pp1773–1781.

Sachdeva A et al (2009) Lipid levels in patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease: an analysis of 136,905 hospitalizations in get with the guidelines. American Heart Journal 157 111–117