Framing your Work in Health Advocacy – An Engineering Perspective

I thought it might be appropriate to talk about some items that continually come up in reference to the work that we do as there seems to be some framing issues that people do not quite “get”.

First, it’s good to understand that health care as practiced today – being that which is controlled by government, funded by insurance, and taught by traditional academia – has very little to do with health. It is rather much more to do with a medical/industrial complex where product and services are run through a distribution channel governed by cost benefit analysis.

The words “health care” as mentioned in the last newsletter is really an oxymoron. This seems to be lost on most everyone in government, the insurance industry, academia, and even folks like Michael Moore who produce movies (Sicko) detailing the “health care” crisis when in fact you can’t have a health care crises if health doesn’t have anything to do with the care that the system supposedly provides.

I know that you know health has very little to do with health care as practiced in America and most of the rest of the world today, but how do you define what it is that you do if indeed what you do is related to health but is not part of the “health care” system?

When a person comes to a Biomedx workshop and proceeds to adopt a Biomedx systems approach, they are typically not engaged in the health care business as most people think of it.

This is not that. And we don’t want to be that.

That system is broken.

What we teach has nothing to do with insurance, government programs, or anything that looks like “health care” in the traditional sense. Instead we attempt to teach people how to “think” through applied science, so they in turn can teach others – how to be healthy – in a simple way. Why? Because…

If a person is healthy, they can’t be sick.

And it can indeed be that simple.

But to arrive at this place of simplicity, we need to embrace science and logic within a framework of understanding what health is, and then how to measure it and how to control those measurements – because you can’t manage what you don’t measure. This entails the study of not just physiology and biochemistry, but certain areas of physics and electronics among other things.

For example, in our program we advance knowledge of colloid chemistry in an attempt to get students to understand that when observing blood, we are really looking at a colloidal suspension under the control of zeta potential.

Those words will be lost on anyone traditionally trained in the health care market today. Yet, these principles of science are at the core of understanding how to handle at least 50% of every client that walks through the “health care” door.

Since this understanding is not taught and does not exist in the traditional health care marketplace, 50% of every patient of every doctor typically dies from the very same thing but since they don’t see it, nothing is being done about it. That is tragic.

Do we have a health care crisis? No. We have a science crisis.

Science and its practical application in relationship to health has been tossed out the academic and institutional window only to be replaced by myths, money and marketing at many levels of the distribution channel in the current “health care” environment.

Now of course there are some health care channels that do incredible work, ER and intensive care for sure. But for the majority of people thrown into the grip of the average “health care” situation, it is failing miserably and few see a way out. We do, and that’s what we teach – but it’s not about “health care” as it’s currently thought or taught.

We find that practitioners in our business still fall back to using words that make it sound like they are doing something that is akin to traditional health care, but again, this is not that.

Individuals that use a microscope might continue to use phrases like “live blood analysis” or “live cell analysis” to describe what they do. Yet, nothing approaching an “analysis” vis a vis what a laboratory might do when providing some traditional “health diagnosis” ever occurs, so why do people continue to call what they do with a microscope “live blood analysis”?

Perhaps some believe their work with a microscope is indeed “live blood analysis” at some level. If that were the case, there are a few government regulatory agencies that might want to get involved in those affairs, with valid reason or not.

Anyone purporting to do “analysis” via this methodology based on the government’s health care model might be subject to some agency’s directive. This is where one needs to understand the law in relationship to exactly what it is that is being done, but this presupposes the individual knows what it is that is being done. The individual doing the work is solely responsible for defining what that might be.

To this end, try as we might, we strive to get individuals to think hard about what it is that they are doing. We know what we do and what we teach, but folks find it convenient to fall back to comfortable constructs which they find familiar. Thinking in new ways takes some conscious effort.

Health care as generally practiced today is about treating symtoms and conditions and diseases and diagnosing everything imaginable thereof. A Biomedx systems approach does none of that. This is not that.

There is no treatment of disease, no attacking a symptom or condition, nothing approximating any traditional “health care” diagnosis or analysis. We realize that we are essentially made of dirt once removed from the periodic table of the elements, and that is where we like to place our effort for we have found it to be the best place to understand the fundamental basis of the human condition. Knowing this, brings great rewards.

From the FORUM

I posted something a few weeks back to a question which follows the thoughts above, and I will post it here to share what it is that we are really doing and I would ask you to ponder it a bit, you just might start to see something – big…. we’ll have more on this in the future.

…. We look upon the body conceptually as 3 fluid compartments separated by membranes, and it is the movement of charge – the anions and cations – between these compartments and across membranes that truly reflects “flow” in the human condition. Flow is either balanced or not. This is the yin and yang of life. Too much yin, too much yang, too much anion, too much cation; it is this that impacts homeostatic controls. We are really applying engineering principles to understanding error loop control theory in how the body works – though we don’t quite state it as such. There is the interplay of up & down, in & out, high & low, anions & cations, yin & yang, etc.

We audit physiological and bioelectrical feedback from the body itself to know with specificity, as best we can, where in the system the engineering processes are going askew and experiencing error loop failure which results in loss of adaptive capacity within any particular segment of control.

You will note that I used the word “audit” and not analysis. This is because we are really trying to move as far away as we can from being seen as part of a medical model. This is definitely not that. What we do has nothing to do with medicine or “health care” as practiced today. Medicine beyond its definition as a “drug” (which we do not advocate in use), is defined in a medical dictionary as “the art of preventing or curing disease; the science which treats disease in all its relations.” The word “analysis” is often assumed by those involved in medicine or regulating medicine to be a process of disease “diagnosis”.

The audit process we use, which is most appropriately called Flow Systems Auditing, is incapable of diagnosing a disease. As no disease diagnosis is being made, what we do as a result of what we uncover in an audit is also not a “treatment”. In medicine, treatments are offered for disease conditions and symptoms, we don’t do that.

We are looking at error loop failures of key homeostatic fluid and energy flow controls based upon alterations of yin and yang forces which culminate in loss of adaptive capacity of those controls. When this loss of control occurs it creates environmental alterations at a fluid and cell/gel level that can allow a disease process to manifest.

While medicine will proceed to treat the disease, we will proceed to audit the biological, electrical and physiological parameters which the controls themselves are feeding back to us through measurable means. Based upon the quantitative data we gather and knowing how flow at a fundamental level is an interplay of elements once removed from the periodic table – that being anions, cations, zwitter ions, fats & sugars – we can determine the best path to take using these elements of “dirt” – the stuff of which we are made – to reset and re-engineer the error loop failures of the key homeostatic controls and thereby reset the human condition for health.

Once health occurs, disease cannot manifest. If a person is healthy, they can’t be sick. We show people, through a Flow Systems Audit, how to be healthy.

Flow Systems Auditing is the applied science and logic of Human Flow Analytics; the study of flow in the human condition. Stay tuned for more.


And you thought you knew what we were really doing…

Scroll to Top