The Biology of Belief - Bruce H. Lipton [47]
An important study forty years ago by Oxford University biophysicist C. W. F. McClare calculated and compared the efficiency of information transfer between energy signals and chemical signals in biological systems. His research, “Resonance in Bioenergetics,” published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Science, revealed that energetic signaling mechanisms such as electromagnetic frequencies are a hundred times more efficient in relaying environmental information than physical signals such as hormones, neurotransmitters, growth factors, etc. (McClare 1974)
It is not surprising that energetic signals are so much more efficient. In physical molecules, the information that can be carried is directly linked to a molecule’s available energy. However, the chemical coupling employed to transfer their information is accompanied by a massive loss of energy due to the heat generated in making and breaking chemical bonds. Because thermo-chemical coupling wastes most of the molecule’s energy, the small amount of energy that remains limits the amount of information that can be carried as the signal.
We know that living organisms must receive and interpret environmental signals in order to stay alive. In fact, survival is directly related to the speed and efficiency of signal transfer. The speed of electromagnetic energy signals is 186,000 miles per second, while the speed of a diffusible chemical is considerably less than 1 centimeter per second. Energy signals are 100 times more efficient and infinitely faster than physical chemical signaling. What kind of signaling would your trillion-celled community prefer? Do the math!
Buying the Pharm
I believe the major reason why energy research has been all but ignored comes down to dollars and cents. The trillion-dollar pharmaceutical industry puts its research money into the search for magic bullets in the form of chemicals because pills mean money. If energy healing could be made into tablet form, drug manufacturers would get interested quickly.
Instead, they identify deviations in physiology and behavior that vary from some hypothetical norm as unique disorders or dysfunctions, and then they educate the public about the dangers of these menacing disorders. Of course, the over-simplified symptomology used in defining the dysfunctions prevalent in drug company advertisements has viewers convinced they are afflicted by that particular malady. “Do you worry? Worry is a primary symptom of ‘medical condition’ called anxiety disorder. Stop your worry. Tell your doctor you want Addictazac, the new passion-pink drug.”
Meanwhile, the media essentially avoids the issue of deaths by medicine by directing our attention to the dangers of illicit drugs. They admonish us that using drugs to escape life’s problems is not the way to resolve one’s issue. Funny … I was just going to use that exact sentence to describe my concerns about the overuse of legal drugs. Are they dangerous? Ask the people who died last year. Using prescription drugs to silence a body’s symptoms enables us to ignore personal involvement we may have with the onset of those symptoms. The overuse of prescription drugs provides a vacation from personal responsibility.
Our drug mania reminds me of a job at an auto dealership I held while in graduate school. At 4:30 on a Friday afternoon, an irate woman came into the shop. Her car’s “service engine light” was flashing, even though her car had already been repaired for that same problem several times. At 4:30 on a Friday afternoon, who wants to work on a balky problem and deal with a furious customer? Everyone was quiet, except for one mechanic who said, “I’ll take care of it.” He drove the car back into the bay, got in behind the dashboard, removed the bulb from the