In her book, The Wholeness Principle, Anna Lemkow (1995) refers to Thomas Samuel Kuhn to define a paradigm (p. 80). According to Kuhn, a paradigm is like a pair of glasses worn by the scientist that influences his or her point of view much in the same manner that a pair of prescription eyeglasses affects vision (p. 80). When a paradigm shift occurs, the viewpoint—like an eyeglass prescription—is no longer useable and a different viewpoint must be adapted. In a similar manner, all human being are scientists (explorers if you will) making their way through life with specific viewpoints and belief systems. Our belief systems contain a variety of paradigms, scientific and otherwise, that are formed by any number of sources, including education, religion, media, family, friends, etcetera. Paradigms can be generated and maintained for a variety of reasons, such as out of a need to explain our world and feel safe. One paradigm that many Americans have found a false sense of security in is the belief that we will live longer, healthier lives with modern medicine, processed foods and minimal movement. The implications of this belief—or paradigm—have been devastating. Often, individuals become severely physically or mentally ill before this paradigm is challenged and a change in diet, exercise and medical treatment is considered. Even if the individual experiences a paradigm shift and no longer believes that modern medicine, processed foods and a sedentary lifestyle are optimal, their health insurance will most likely be operating under the old paradigm and not cover any costs for so-called "alternative" or "complimentary" medicine. Furthermore, most whole foods, especially organic, are considerably more expensive than traditional foodstuffs, severely limiting access for many.

As our culture continues to operate under the existing healthcare paradigm, diabetes, heart disease and cancer (which many healthcare providers consider lifestyle diseases) have all reached record highs in the U.S. While adults cling to the old healthcare paradigm, children suffer along with them. Type 2 diabetes, which was once called adult-onset diabetes because it rarely occurred before middle age, now affects children as young as six years old (Mercola, 2003, 3). At the pediatric unit in one diabetes center, staff said they've seen a 10-fold rise in childhood Type 2 diabetes in the past decade ( 2). Complications include kidney failure, blindness, heart attacks and amputations. Most children with type 2 diabetes are overweight and doctors point out that many kids consume several 20-ounce sodas everyday, adding 1,000 calories daily, all from sugar ( 5). Diabetes is out of control in the adult population as well. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), diabetes rose by 33% between 1990 and 1998 among the US population; 70% among people in their 30s, 40% among 40-49 year olds, and by 31% among those age 50-59 (Pirisi, 2005, 1).

Along with diabetes, the U.S. heart disease epidemic is also linked to obesity, and not surprisingly, obesity in the U.S. is considered an epidemic as well (Eckel, 1997, 1). I'm convinced that if we wait long enough we'll find that that cancer is linked to obesity, from all the toxins from pesticides and additives in food and our environment being trapped in the fat on our bodies.

We've known about the obesity problem in the U.S. for a number of decades now, and yet Americans continue to gain weight, eat fast food, and spend millions on fad diets. Is it a coincidence that Americans are popping antidepressant drugs like candy? This disaster—our modern approach to lifestyle and health care—is an example of what Fritjof Capra (1997) calls a "social paradigm," a collection of concepts, values, perceptions and practices shared by a community that influences the organization of the structures within the community (p. 4, 5). In The Web of Life, Fritjof Capra (1997) describes how shifts of paradigms occur not only within science, but in a "larger social arena" (p. 4). Our culture's view on modern medicine and nutrition has been formed in such a manner, massively influenced by the media, government, American Medical Association and pharmaceutical companies. Television and print ads are flooded with commercials for drugs and highly processed foods, both of which are proving to be more harmful than helpful in instance after instance. Individuals and organizations that attempt to challenge this paradigm, receive not only resistance but aggression from opposing forces, for obvious financial reasons. Retailers and healthcare practitioners that sell nutritional supplements routinely receive warnings and are raided by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA). A local colleague who sells nutritional supplements on the internet was recently raided by FDA and Treasury agents. The day of the raid, there were 3 employees in the store, all of whom were surprised when thirty government agents stormed in, all with guns drawn. Unfortunately, this situation is not unusual. The FDA routinely carries out raids and uses other intimidating tactics, such as seizures and threatening letters. The common consensus in the complimentary healthcare fields is that the FDA is an agent of the pharmaceutical companies. A study done in 2000 by USA Today revealed that "More than half of the experts hired to advise the government [FDA] on the safety and effectiveness of medicine have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that will be helped or hurt by their decisions" (Cauchon, 2000, 1). The study goes on to say, "The experts are supposed to be independent, but USA TODAY found that 54% of the time, they have a direct financial interest in the drug or topic they are asked to evaluate" ( 3). Although Federal law prohibits the FDA from using experts with financial conflicts of interest, the FDA waived the restriction over 800 times between 1998 and 2000 ( 4). The conflict between pharmaceutical companies and our personal welfare has become so extreme that the drug companies have become involved in the United Nations in an attempt to limit world access to nutritional supplements via a commission called "Codex Alimentarius," Codex for short. Codex was originally established in 1963 as a committee of the United Nation's World Health Organization to develop food standards and guidelines (Codex, 2005, 1). The pharmaceutical companies began pushing Codex to price fix and restrict supplements in 1999, ironically the same year that Swiss drug company La Roche Holding AG pleaded guilty to the largest ever U.S. antitrust conspiracy to fix vitamins prices, resulting in a $500 million dollar fine (Null, p. 88). That same year, Hoechst, Bayer and BASF, three of the world biggest drug companies, basically took over the Codex commission, pushing for limits on the dosage and availability of supplements to consumers (p. 88). Why would these huge drug companies care about consumer access to vitamins, minerals and other supplements? Because recent research of large-dose nutrient and vitamin therapies have shown it effective against the world's major illnesses, such as heart disease, cancer, and AIDS (Campbell, 2005, 3). In one 1991 study, Dr. Matthias Rath proved that heart disease could be completely reversed with a simple nutrient regimen ( 3). The major revenue source of the drug companies, their high-priced chemotherapy drugs, heart disease control drugs, and AIDS drugs, could become obsolete if people realized that natural remedies could be purchased without a doctor's prescription at a much lower price ( 3).

Another interesting development occurred in 1999 when two federal class action suits were filed in 1999 against drug companies Bayer, Hoechst and Schering, charging the German companies with participating in Nazi medical experiments, some under the supervision of the infamous Dr. Joseph Mengele (p. 88). The suit was filed by Eva Kor, a twin who was one of the 1,500 sets of twins experimented on by Dr. Mengele (Corporate, 2003, 8). One of the charges in the suit claimed that Bayer provided the toxic chemicals that were administered to the twins in the Mengele experiments ( 8). Other similar American lawsuits arose and eventually Eva Kor and the other claimants were paid from a fund put up by the German government and the drug companies ( 9). Bayer provided 100 million of the fund, which totaled 10 billion German Marks ( 9). All of the companies involved insisted that the settlement stipulate there be no loss of their reputation. ( 9).

The behavior of the drug companies is of particular interest because it demonstrates the life cycle of a paradigm, and how it's interconnected, affecting us globally, locally and individually. If the pharmaceutical companies have their way—and it looks as if they eventually will—there will be an international regulation that will require a prescription from a physician in order to get vitamins and other supplements that are strong enough to have any effect. The drug companies are pushing to have the regulations passed and in effect as soon as possible. It's my hope that consumers will see the impact of this regulation before such a global law is enacted.

The analysis of paradigms and paradigm shifts are central to the evolution of mankind. It is by seeing the dynamics and limits of an existing paradigm that we begin to desire change, or a paradigm shift. Kuhn is largely responsible for popularizing these concepts. After receiving a Ph. D. in physics from Harvard University in 1949, he became an assistant professor of general education and history of science until his 1956 departure for the University of California Berkeley, where he eventually became a full professor of history of science (Emory, 2005, 1). Kuhn wrote five books, the most renown being The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, written while he was a graduate student in theoretical physics at Harvard science ( 2). Published in 1962, it has sold approximately one million copies in 16 languages and has been used as a textbook for courses in education, history, psychology, research, and history and philosophy of science ( 2). Ironically, as Kuhn expounded on the nature of a "paradigm," critics cited him for the incorrect use of the word ( 3). Kuhn described a paradigm as a systems of beliefs about how the world is understood, and believed that a paradigm shifts is a scientific revolution during which an older paradigm is replaced by an incompatible new one ( 3, 9).