Hans Selye was the first person to make a strong case for the underlying cause of the kinds of "disease" that most people encounter as they "age." In his book, "The Stress of Life" (1956/1976, revised edition), he explained how he came upon his insight: "In 1925 I was a student at the Medical School of the ancient University of Prague... Then came the great day... when we were to hear our first lecture in internal medicine and see how one examines a patient... we were shown several cases in the earliest stages of various diseases. As each patient was brought into the lecture room, the professor carefully questioned and examined him. It turned out that each of these patients felt and looked ill, had a coated tongue, complained of more or less dffuse aches and pains in the joints, and of intestinal disturbances with loss of appetite. Most of them also had fever..., an enlarged spleen or liver, inflamed tonsils, a skin rash, and so forth. " Pages 15 and 16.

Selye then mentions that the professor told his students that such symptoms were "nonspecific," and that the doctor had to wait until the patient developed clear signs of a particular "disease" (that was described in the relevant textbook before taking action. Selye asked, "Why is it... that such widely different disease-producing agents as those which cause measles, scarlet fever, or the flu, share with a number of drugs, allergens, etc., the property of evoking the nonspecific manifestations which have just been mentioned?" But as time went by, Selye found that he had adopted the "wait for specific manifestation of a particular disease" approach, and went on to do research about endocrinal phenomena, seeking to discover a new hormone that was responsible for what appeared to be a specific "disease." Yet what happened surprised him, because he found that a new hormone was not the cause, but any stressor could produce the symptoms of what he imagineed to be a particular disease. After thinking about what this could mean, it dawned on him to return to his earlier questions about the theoretical framework he assumed to be correct, and he concluded that: "If there was such a thing as a single nonspecific reaction of the body to damage of any kind, this might be worth study for its own sake." Page 29.

Selye's investigations were based on physiology, that is, observations about how the body functions that could be organized into a fairly coherent framework, and tested for accuracy. But the question about why tissues and organs responded as they did could not be answered circa 1950 on the molecular level, because the knowledge required for such an answer was not yet available. Thus, the physiological approach is "epiphenomenal," scientifically-speaking. That is, the phenomena being observed occurs after the initiating event, and while "medications" or "therapies" might help attentuate the "disease" (whether one deems it specific or not), my concern is whether one can determine what the original, underlying cause is, so that one can prevent both the nonspecific, and then the specific symptoms of "disease."

By the early 1970s, Denham Harman had worked out a "free radical" hypothesis of disease and aging, and so everything was in place to make the connection between various stressors and free radical damage on a molecular level (and further down the pathway, the response of tissues and organs). Other scientists, such as Ray Peat, have talked about the physiological implications of Harman's insights and related issues. But at the same time, other researchers were working on alternative hypotheses about "disease," thinking that there was a specific cause for a specific disease. One such hypothesis, if it even deserves to be called this, was the claim that high serum cholesterol levels "caused" "heart disease." This claim was supported by terribly flawed evidence, but those who pointed out the flaws were largely ignored. An interesting book in this context is "The Cholesterol Conspiracy." In any case, to this day most doctors and research scientists believe that they are "working to cure ___________ disease." And we see the results, which are so disappointing (especially considering the money and effort involved) that I consider them absolutely pathetic.

Thus, there is a huge difference between those like myself, who can see the truly scientific evidence supporting the free radical based ideas about the underlying cause of what later is viewed as a "disease" and those who believe that there are no connections among the "diseases," and that a substance like cholesterol, for example, which is made in larger amounts by the body than is ingested via the diet (and is a substance that is necessary for life), could be the "cause" of "heart disease." If this were the case, then there would not have been the "epidemic" of heart disease in the middle of the twentieth century, because even if people ate a bit more cholesterol overall than a generation or two earlier (when "heart disease" was an extreme rarity), the body simply produces less. The free radical based view, however, explains the cause of "heart disease" perfectly, with no "loose ends," and down to the molecular level. See http://www.cwru.edu/pubaff/univcomm/2002/june/cholesterol.htm , for example, for a very good description of the process. Yet today, despite the wealth of evidence that is now readily available to all who wish to see it (if they have internet access), the "biomedical establishment" shows few signs of changing course in all but the most minor of ways, for instance, in a recent statement by American Heart Association spokesman Dr. Richard Stein mentioning that only oxidized cholesterol is dangerous. Instead, the media mostly reports on studies of statistical correlations, which should be no more than "food for thought," and "discoveries" of genes and protiens that are "behaving abnormally," but with no explanation why, and promises of "cures" in the "near future."

Over the last twenty years or so, "nutritional" and "alternative medicine" experts have gained much greater media exposure for their claims, and one of these claims that is very popular today involves some aspect of the "essential fatty acid" notion. These "essential fatty acids" are very susceptible to free radical attack, especially in the context of the typical American diet, and so it is crucial to determine whether this claim is accurate or not, because if it is not, then the public is being misled to eat foods or take supplements that will lead to "disease," rather than prevent it. In my investigation into this matter I have found the opposite, namely that the "essential fatty acids" are largely responsible for "disease," again, especially in the context of the typical American diet. What this means is that if you just add an "essential fatty acid supplement" to your diet, you are increasing the chances of developing a "disease," and of developing it sooner, than if you did nothing at all. And the purposes of this web site is to point out such situations, examine the evidence, and provoke intelligent discussion. I've made my decision, essentially staking my life on my interpretation of the evidence.

Why? Because it is the only explanation that is consistent with all the evidence, and I am only one of many (including a huge number of scientists) who have come to this conclusion. For example:

"This data provides the first molecular link between... free radicals and protein misfolding, which is currently thought to be a common pathway in the pathogenesis of virtually all neurodegenerative conditions."

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060524222845.htm