Modern medicine adopted four presumptions when it evolved from ancient experienced-based mind-body medicine. To understand its failure in finding cures for chronic diseases, we examined four presumptions, and found that statistical population of health properties does not exist for most research purposes, mathematical models are misused to model intensive properties, synthetic drugs are inherently more dangerous than nature-made medicines under their respective application conditions, and reductionist treatments are inferior and inherently dangerous. We found that clinical trials are valid only for research where treatment effect is much stronger than the total effects of all interfering or co-causal factors or errors introduced by misused mathematical models can be tolerated. In all other situations, clinical trials introduce excessive errors and fail to detect treatment effects, or produce biased, incorrect or wrong results. We further found that chronic diseases are manifestation of small departures in multiple process attributes in distinctive personal biological pathways networks, that modern medicine lacks required accuracy for accurately characterizing chronic diseases, and that reductionist treatments are good at controlling symptoms and safe for short term uses. For all stated reasons, as long as modern medicine continues relying on the flawed presumptions, it can never find predictable cures for chronic diseases. By implication, predictable cures to chronic diseases are adjustments to lifestyle, dietary, emotional, and environmental factors to slowly correct departures in process attributes responsible for chronic diseases.

To understand lung damage caused by COVID-19, we deduced two-phase lung damage mechanisms. After the lungs are infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus, the affected lung tissue swells and surface properties of pulmonary capillaries change, resulting in an increased flow resistance of affected capillaries. If a sufficient number of capillaries are affected by the infection, the swelling and increased cell wall adhesion collectively raise pulmonary vascular resistance. The increased vascular resistance further increases the dwell times of WBCs in affected capillaries and nearly capillaries. When pulmonary pressure is sufficiently higher, WBCs are forced to squeeze into interstitial spaces or alveolar spaces when local pressures are higher than what the capillaries can withstand. When more and more WBCs are dynamically retained, the flow resistance of more capillaries rises, pulmonary vascular resistance rises, and pulmonary pressure rises. The rise in the pulmonary pressure in turn results in elevated capillary pressures. When capillary pressures around the alveoli are sufficiently high, they cause interstitial pressures to change from normally negative values to positive values. The positive pressures cause fluid leakage to the alveolar space and thus degrade lung function. Tissue swelling, and occupation of WBCs in interstitial spaces and alveolar spaces further reduce compressible volume, and thus cause further rise in the pulmonary vascular resistance and pulmonary pressure. When the pulmonary pressure has reached a critical point as in the second phase, the blood breaks capillary walls and squeezes through interstitial spaces to reach alveolar spaces, resulting in irreversible lung damages. The available free volume in the thorax cage, organ usable capacities, temperature and humid are expected to have great impacts on degree of lung damages. The free volume in the thorax cage, lung usable surplus capacity, and other organ usable capacities determine the arrival time of last-phase irreversible damage. The mechanisms imply that the top priority for protecting lungs is maintaining pulmonary micro-circulation and preserving organ functions in the entire disease course while controlling viral reproduction should be stressed in the earliest time possible. The mechanisms also explain leukecytes are recruited and migrated into inflamed tissues by increasing their dwell times caused by increased local flow resistance.

To predict how the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, we developed a systematic method for predicting disease outcomes. In the method, we evaluate how personal disease outcomes are mainly affected by viral concentration and exposure time and four defense mechanisms: human innate immunity/host response, acquired immune response, inflammation resolution and micro circulation, and the available space in the thorax cage. By considering how pandemic measures affect viral exposure and those mechanisms, we found many pandemic measures are misused or abused to deliver long-term adverse impacts. We noted that lifestyles have been changed as a result of movement restriction measures. By using the method, we found that altered lifestyles are predicted to raise infection rate, disability and death risks in the future. We show that a person can use personal, environmental, emotional factors to reduce infection rate and death risk. To prove the validity of this finding, we extensively examined medical research models, holistic and reductionist models, epidemiological models, disease risk factors, etc, and found that population methods are unfit for studying holistic health, statistical population does not exist in most clinical trials, mathematical models were misused for studying disease properties for a population, mathematical equations for modeling personal diseases are beyond human ability to solve, statistical models are misused, population-derived treatments are inherently dangerous to patients, vaccines have limited benefits due to unique lung structure and rapid RNA mutation, and immune system damage is caused by fast viral replication rate. We found that altering biological properties to improve the defense mechanisms could prevent a super majority of deaths and prevent the virus from reaching a point to damage the immune system. For vulnerable persons, such measure is a viable strategy for surviving from the pandemic. As a whole, holistic personalized medicine is more powerful than population-based reductionist treatment by one to several orders of magnitudes. We urge people do their parts to force the medical establishment to abandon population treatment models that are responsible for failure of medicine and dissemination of misleading and factually wrong information on the effectiveness of medical treatments.

We conducted many model simulations to understand the causes of the damages of coronavirus (COVID-19) to lung tissue and constructed a diagram showing apparent viral reproduction, immune response and damage accumulation curves. We found that lung damages include virus-caused damage, tissue damage caused by immune responses and tissue damage caused by accumulated wastes. The virus-caused damage is proportional to the phase lag between the viral reproduction curve and the delayed adaptive immune response curve, while waste-induced damage is attributed to imbalance in removing viral, cellular and metabolic by-products. We found that treatment strategies should slow down viral reproduction and speed up immune response, and improve blood micro-circulation in the lungs. Consistent with the strategies, measures are taken to void direct lung infection, strengthen innate responses, promote immune responses, dilute viral concentration in lung tissue, maintain waste removal balance, protect heart and kidneys, control other infections, avoid allergic reactions and other inflammation, etc. We show that medical, dietary, emotional, lifestyle, environmental, mechanical factors, etc. may be simultaneously used to mitigate lung damages and prove that multiple factor health optimization method is magnitudes more powerful than a single factor treatment. Such a method does not depend on molecular specificity and can be used in parallel to antiviral drugs.

To understand great disparities in disease outcomes between CIVID-19 patients, we explore infection and host responses in kinetics. From existing data, we deduced a model that the lungs are damaged by rapidly rising flow resistance as a result of retaining white blood cells in lung tissues. The retention of white blood cells is initially triggered by viral infection but aggravated by injuries caused by low temperature. Lungs are initially damaged by fluid leakage, rapidly followed by extruding blood into alveolar spaces. The step of blood extruding is predicted to take place in a very short time. Our simulations show that as little as 0.1% retention of white blood cells in the lungs can lead to their failure in 5 to 10 days. The small degrees of imbalance implies that this imbalance could be corrected by a large number of factors that are known to reduce flow resistance. The model implies that the top priority is maintaining blood micro-circulation and preserving organ functions in the entire disease course, especially after the virus has spread the whole lungs. From exploring a large number of hypothetical infection modes, we propose preventive, mitigating and treatment strategies for ultimately ending the pandemic. The first strategy is avoiding exposures that could result in widespread damages to lungs and taking post exposure mitigating measures that would reduce disease severity. The second strategy is reducing death rate and disability rate from the current levels to one tenth for infected patients by using multiple factors health optimization method. The double reduction strategies are expected to generate a series of chain reactions that favor mitigating or ending the pandemic. Some reactions include a big reduction of the amount of viral discharges from infected patients into the air, the avoidance of panic, chronic stress and emotional distress, and cross-infections which are expected in quarantines. The double reductions would have a final effect of ending the pandemic.

We examined special roles of the Central Nervous System (CNS) in an attempt to resolve the puzzle that chronic diseases cannot be cured by medicine. By exploring a skill-learning model, we found that the CNS is able to remember certain information reflecting biochemical and cellular (B&C) processes in the body. From the skill using ability, we found that the CNS is able to control basic B&C processes that drive and power the skill. From the ability to adjust forces and force direction of a physical act, we found that the CNS is able to adjust B&C processes that drive the physical act. From this adjustment capability, we further inferred that the CNS must also store information on the baseline B&C processes. As a whole, we found that the CNS can maintain information on baseline B&C processes, up-regulate or down-regulate the processes, and make comparisons in performing its regulatory functions. We found that chronic diseases are the results of deviated baseline B&C processes. Per the proved hypothesis, the CNS maintains deviated baseline B&C processes, and thus protects the body states of fully developed diseases. We then used the three CNS roles to explain that cancer progresses with increasing malignancy, cancer quickly returns after a surgery, cancer cells repopulate after chemotherapy and radiotherapy, cancer develops drug resistance inevitably, immune cells rebound after suppression, generally poor benefits of cancer drugs such as beta-blockers, etc. We further showed that long-term exercises generally push most, if not all, baseline B&C processes in diametrical opposing directions against the diseased B&C processes, implying that exercises play unique roles in reversing chronic diseases. Finally, we proposed several strategical approaches to resetting the CNS’ state memory as the essential condition for curing chronic diseases.

After reviewing cancer theories, cancer treatment development histories, randomized clinical trial's performance, cancer treatment strategy, trial follow-up times, and conducting numerous simulations using existing data, the authors found: (1) medical treatments come with three to four lethal factors: treatment side-effects, emotional distress and chronic dress, lack of exercises or physical inactivity, and excessive nutrition in some cases; (2) clinical trial exaggerates the benefits of fast-acting treatments and underestimates the slow-delivering adverse side effects as a result of statistical averaging, interfering effects of personal lifestyle factors, and insufficient follow-up times; (3) the benefits of medical treatments are limited by chain comparison, where surgery sets up a negative standard relative to the best way for resolving cancer; (4) the strategy of destroying the tumor is unworkable; (5) medical treatments can turn natural cancer growth curve into approximately doubly exponential curve; (6) multiple factor non-medical measures are much more powerful than medical treatments in controlling cancer growth and metastasis rates; and (7) cancer early diagnosis and over treatments are bad strategies that have great adverse impacts on cancer patients. Based on huge increases in cancer growth rate constants, substantial of loss of organ functional capacity, and severe systemic aging-like cellular damages, the authors concluded that medical treatments promote cancer growth and metastasis rates and shorten patient lives in most cases, and the claimed benefits are caused by triple biases of clinical trials. The authors believe that the better strategy for ending the global cancer epidemic is abandoning clinical trails as the research model, changing caner treatment strategy from killing cancer cells to slowing down cancer growth rates by using multiple factors optimization approach in personalized medicine.

Chronic diseases are still known as incurable diseases, and we suspect that the medical research model is unfit for characterizing chronic diseases. In this study, we examined accuracy and reliability required for characterizing chronic diseases, reviewed implied presumptions in clinical trials and assumptions used in statistical analysis, examined sources of variances normally encountered in clinical trials, and conducted numeric simulations by using hypothetical data for several theoretical and hypothetical models. We found that the sources of variances attributable to personal differences in clinical trials can distort hypothesis test outcomes, that clinical trials introduce too many errors and too much inaccuracies that tend to hide weak and slow effects of treatments, and that the means of treatments used in statistical analysis have little or no relevance to specific patients. We further found that a large number of uncontrolled co-causal or interfering factors normally seen in human subjects can greatly enlarge the means and the variances of the experimental errors, and the use of high rejection criteria (e.g., low p values) further raises the chances of failing to find treatment effects. As a whole, we concluded that the research model using clinical trials is wrong on multiple grounds, under any of our realistic theoretical and hypothetical models, and that misuse of statistical analysis is most probably responsible for failure to identify treatment effects for chronic diseases and to detect harmful effects of toxic substances in the environment. We proposed alternative experimental models involving the use of single-person or mini optimization trials for studying low-risk weak treatments.