How a Neurological Disorder Changed my Life for the Better

Pre-orders for my new book will be at www.publishizer.com from August 1 to August 31 and ALL proceeds will go to charity. There will be a lot of bonuses and free offers to pre-order books. I hope to complete the book by early next year. Below is information on the book:

How a Neurological Disorder Changed my Life for the Better: The Science behind Nerve, Muscular, and Neuromuscular Disorders and their Effects on Cycling

I achieved athletic success with a debilitating neurological condition for three reasons. First, training techniques can alter muscle protein composition overcoming physical limitations. Second, training can bypass diseased cells by creating alternate neural pathways for the brain and muscles to communicate. Finally, improving personality traits such as resiliency, grit, and mental toughness can help overcome physical limitations such as pain.

Synopsis

The good news is people are living longer, the bad news is people are suffering from higher rates of morbidity. Further complicating matters is that the medical community treats the symptoms and not the illness allowing people to live longer but the quality of life is reduced. Most reasons for morbidity are because our genes are being exposed to environments that they never experienced during the evolution process such as certain prescription drugs, less sleep, alcohol uses, smoking, exposure to toxins, stress, new illnesses, and certain foods. The result is disease and, in many cases, autoimmune disorders. In fact, according to Daniel Lieberman there is a good chance you will die from a disease caused by genetic mismatches with environmental factors. To put matters in perspective, according to the CDC there are about 600 rare diseases and the prevalence rate all 600 diseases in the United States alone is over 10%. What's worse, if all diseases are taken into account about 25 to 33% of the United States is sick or will be sick in the next few years. That is extraordinary because many disorders can be avoided through a well-balanced diet and exercise. If you have been suffering from disease and illness such as chronic pain then may be interested in this book.

This book explains my story and philosophy to cope with two chronic debilitating neurological conditions while competing in cycling. What's more, after 13 years of testing and visiting 9 neurologist I have been misdiagnosed several times and they are still uncertain about my current diagnosis. Thus, it is possible that I have something that is completely unique and science has yet to catch up with my disorder. The important facets of my story are acceptance, advocacy, adaptation, and attitude (AAAA). Although Peripheral Nerve Hyper-excitation (PNH) and neuropathy disorders can be debilitating and wreak-havoc on the lives of those inflicted, it is still possible to have a productive, successful, and meaningful life. Furthermore, without practicing AAAA, instead of winning races I would be requiring assistance to walk and to do other everyday functions. Although gene expression and adaptation for exercise and diet are unique to each individual, 99.9% of all people obtain some benefits. This novel book educates the public about my experiences and what I learned from my medical and cycling journey about a plethora of subjects including anatomy, epidemiology, physiology, neuromuscular disease, environmental factors, pain, fear, stress, depression, acceptance, adaptation, mental toughness, competition, diet, and endurance training to name a few. The bottom line is that not only is vigorous exercise achievable but so too is athletic improvement and success in the presence of a debilitating neurological disorder. Furthermore, athletic achievement is possible in the absence of athletic genes.

My experience and research have enlightened me to blog about peripheral nerve hyper-excitation (PNH) disorders. My blog post “The Misconceptions of Benign Fasciculation Syndrome” has produced over 150 thousand reads. Other blog posts I have written on the subject have received thousands of reads. Several years back I also participated in a forum on paresthesia symptoms on a Huffington Post webcast. I am not a doctor and do not hold a PhD in any educational field (I have a B.S. in electrical engineering). None the less, I have had several doctors stricken with PNH reach out to me asking for my advice. For instance, I sent the section on “Fear” to one doctor suffering from PNH and he wrote me back saying “The Fear component of the book is fabulous”. My communication with patients, my independent research for this text, my blogs, and my survey have provided me a clearer picture of what is going on but I am certainly no expert (I may know more than most, but no one is an expert). At the same time, I can speculate with more certainty about what is going on with me. As far as expertise in cycling is concerned, I have been competing in cycling the past 7 years and have been on the podium in over 100 races including national and state titles in time trial events. Yes, I have many cycling achievements, but what makes these accomplishments unique is that they were attained while I was battling two debilitating neurological conditions that impair both strength and power.

About the author

I authored two books, Moneysense and Defending Freedom of Contract. MoneySense is a book on personal finance and Defending Freedom of Contract is a book on Constitutional Law.

I have seen 9 neurologists over the past 13 years and my diagnosis has change 4 times. Currently my diagnosis is both cramp fasciculation syndrome (CFS) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) or multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN). A definitive diagnosis has been difficult to pin point because my symptoms and diagnostic testing results do not fit any one disorder. My symptoms are vast and include motor, sensory, and autonomic nerves.

My neurological condition forced me to evolve to cycling 7 years ago after other activities were deemed a safety concern (rock climbing) or too painful (running). I participated in my first race at age 50 and have since won over 70 races and been on the podium over 100 times despite significant muscle power impairment.

Stay-at-home-orders Amicus Brief (Part III)

Argument

I. Sovereignty

Justice James Wilson wrote one of four brief Supreme Court majority opinions for Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. 419 (1793) citing it was the people of the United States that are the sovereign power, not the state or federal governments. Chisholm held that citizens had a right to sue state governments. Wilson’s opinion was joined by fellow Constitutional Conventionalist John Blair, Chief Justice John Jay (author of five Federalist Papers), and William Cushing. In fact, Wilson, Edmund Randolph, and Oliver Ellsworth were on the five-member committee responsible for drafting the Constitution. This committee took proposals from Constitutional Convention members and wrote document drafts, which were reviewed, debated, and edited by the entire convention. Without a doubt, these Founders understood the meaning of Constitution better than anyone in United States history. At the Pennsylvania ratifying convention Wilson proclaimed, “[I]mpartiality is the leading feature, there ought to be a tribunal in which both parties (state and citizen) stand on a just and equal footing.” Attorney General Edmund Randolph, who defended Chisholm, said although states are sovereigns, governments were created for the happiness of the people. Randolph understood protecting the rights of the people was the primary purpose of governments.

Some argue that the passage of the Eleventh Amendment made the holding in Chisholm moot. However, Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Fletcher v. Peck 10 U.S. 87 (1810) held suing state governments may no longer be in the Constitution, but Chisholm was correct and provided the proper meaning of the Constitution. In other words, the Eleventh Amendment does not change the meaning of the Constitution, it merely prohibits citizens (from different states) from suing states. Marshall’s exact words in Fletcher were,

The Constitution, as passed, gave the courts of the United States jurisdiction in suits brought against individual States. A State, then, which violated its own contract was suable in the courts of the United States for that violation. Would it have been a defense in such a suit that the State had passed a law absolving itself from the contract? It is scarcely to be conceived that such a defense could be set up. And yet, if a State is neither restrained by the general principles of our political institutions nor by the words of the Constitution from impairing the obligation of its own contracts, such a defense would be a valid one. This feature is no longer found in the Constitution, but it aids in the construction of those clauses with which it was originally associated.

Therefore, Marshall does not necessarily think Chisholm was completely repudiated by the Eleventh Amendment. In Marshall’s view, Chisholm was a sound decision whose principles still represent legitimate constitutional jurisprudence. Put another way, citizens are still sovereign within the structure of the Constitution and the Eleventh Amendment was not an open invitation for states to violate the rights of its citizens.

II. Rights

The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Fourteenth Amendment provides, “No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The Ninth Amendment provides, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

There are fundamental rights of individuals that government is to preserve at all cost. These rights, liberties, freedoms, and privileges and immunities are defined in the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance (1787), the Constitution (1789), the Bill of Rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386 (1798), Corfield v. Coryell 6 Fed. Case 546 No. 3,230 C.C.E.D Pa (1823), Allgeyer v. Louisiana 165 U.S. 578 (1897), and Meyer v. Nebraska 262 U.S. 390 (1923). Those privileges and immunities defined in the Fourteenth Amendment include the right to work, play, friendships (associations), marriage, health, life, safety, happiness, liberty, property, contracts, knowledge, enjoyment of nature and arts, self-defense, self-preservation, religion, family, free speech, the right to vote, travel, and justice.

The Constitution protects several fundamental rights. Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 and 3 provide:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

The above procedural rights protect the fundamental right to justice. The writ of habeas corpus provides no one is jailed without receiving the full benefits of the judicial system; prohibiting ex post facto laws protects people from being jailed for retroactive laws; and prohibiting a bill of attainer law which would find persons guilty without a trial. The contract clause, defined in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution, is also a natural law fundamental right protected by the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of press, freedom of religion, gun rights for self-defense, and property rights. The other procedural clauses in the Bill of Rights protects everyone’s right to justice similar to those provisions discussed in the previous paragraph. In other words, these clauses protect our inalienable right to be presumed innocent of any crime. These clauses provide the fundamental right of justice through procedures such as a jury trial, a right to a unanimous verdict by a jury for conviction, a right to a speedy trial, a right to face the accuser, a right to no cruel and unusual punishment, a right to grand jury protections, a right to no illegal search and seizures, a right to no self-incrimination, and a right to an attorney.

In Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386 (1798), Chief Justice Samuel Chase defined some fundamental rights as:

A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys or impairs the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B.: it is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a legislature with such powers; and therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature and the spirit of our state governments, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them.

In 1823, Circuit Judge Bushrod Washington wrote the opinion for Corfield v. Coryell 6 Fed. Case 546 No. 3,230 C.C.E.D Pa (1823) This court upheld a New Jersey law that prohibited non-residents from gathering oysters and clams from state waters. Washington refused to apply Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution which states, “Citizens of the several states are allowed to participate in the all the rights which belong exclusively to the citizens of any other particular state.” Washington explained that Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution “did not guarantee equal access to all public benefits a state may choose to make available to its citizens.” Instead, Washington pointed out that Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution only “applied to those rights which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments.” Washington defined our rights in the Coryell decision as follows:

Protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety; subject nevertheless to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole. Furthermore, Justice Washington opined that the privileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens of each state when in other states include: The right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the state.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 provides that people have the right:

To make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefits of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

The passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, two years later in 1868, was necessary to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1866 since many did not believe Congress had the power to pass civil rights legislation via the Constitution or the Thirteenth Amendment.

In Allgeyer v. Louisiana 165 U.S. 578 (1897), Justice Rufus Peckham held in a unanimous decision:

The ‘liberty’ mentioned in [the Fourteenth] amendment means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties, to be free to use them in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling, to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts, which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned.

In Meyer v. Nebraska 262 U.S. 390 (1923) Justice James McReynolds held:

Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

The first three Articles of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (drafted before the Constitution) held:

Article 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.

Article 2. The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in the legislature; and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable, unless for capital offenses, for which the proof shall be evident or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate, and no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. No man shall be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land; and, should the public exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to take any person’s property, or to demand his particular services, full compensation shall be made for the same. And, in the just preservation of rights and property, it is understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made, or have force in the said territory, that shall, in any manner whatever, interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements, bona fide, and without fraud, previously formed.

Article 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.

The Racism and Hypocrisy of CHAZ

The city, state, or nation of CHAZ is no different in terms of racism that it accuses our Founders and Police of being guilty of and it is certainly hypocritical in terms of its liberal agenda.

1. CHAZ wants to abolish the police yet it has a force of police armed with long guns and AR15s.

2. Liberals want to abolish the second amendment and ban all assault rifles yet CHAZ is loaded with AR15s.

3. Liberals claim walls are unconstitutional yet CHAZ has built walls and has border patrol.

4. Liberals and CHAZ claim our Founders and this country was founded on racist ideas yet how is the treatment of Police, media, store owners, and conservatives by CHAZ supporters any different than the racism against Blacks and women? Racism is racism. Violence and crime directed at any group of people is wrong.

5. CHAZ wants to be autonomic yet they want to raise taxes on the rest of society to pay for their autonomy of free housing and healthcare.

6. Liberals and CHAZ want to protect the planet yet the city of CHAZ is loaded with garbage, graffiti, and rancid smells of urine and defecation. 7. CHAZ wants to protect "undocumented" persons yet they will not let undesirables into CHAZ.

8. CHAZ is holding many persons hostage who are unable to leave and help is not allowed to get to them.

9. CHAZ wants autonomy but expects the outside world to assist them in matters of getting food, healthcare, and other assistance.

10. While the rest of the country faces Covid 19 restriction, CHAZ and other protesters and rioters are allowed to do what they want.

11. While the rest of the country faces criminal prosecution for committing crimes of looting, rioting, destruction of property, assault, carrying weapons without a permit, murder, and so forth, CHAZ is not held to the same standards.

Obviously, only certain black lives matter. George Floyd's life matters because it fits a liberal narrative. However, black police officers lives and black persons killed during the riots do not matter. The lives of black business owners destroyed by the riots do not matter. The hundreds of black persons murdered by black persons does not matter either. I do not understand it. Maybe the answer is to defund the police and maybe people will change their minds once more black lives are affected by crime. It is a sad state of affairs and I am struggling to comprehend what is going on. There is just so much unnecessary hatred and crime. The CHAZ movement is selfless, they offer nothing and expect everything in return.

How is Trump's Covid 19 Response?

Everyone has an opinion about the Trump response to Covid 19. I happen to believe what he has accomplished by removing regulations has been fairly impressive and I have been pleasantly surprised by his leadership. Trump's decision to ease restrictions was right and data is proving it. However, right now, polls have him well under water for his response and that is because a lot of people are without doubt suffering and feeling the effects of Covid 19. And part of the reason for this is because a large portion of the population still wants to air on caution and leave the economy closed. However, there needs to be some balance or we will fighting a recession for a decade and there will be lots more pain, suffering, and death from that. When asked, most people believe Biden is the best man to handle the Covid 19 situation. I find this very surprising since Biden is afraid to come out his own basement. In order to lead, the most effective way is to have in contact meetings, not zoom meetings. I believe this is the best way to keep Biden under lock and keep him from saying too much.

I look to one independent source to see how the President is doing and that is the stock market. The stock market is very finicky. That said, I believe it highly inflated at this point. But to remain at 25,000 in the face of a pandemic and record unemployment and small business closures tells me they believe in the President. Remember, when Trump took office many predicted the stock market would tank, but that was not even close to the truth. The opposite was true, we saw the greatest stock market run in its history increasing 70% in his first 3 years. The fact it still remains 50% above Obama years is quite telling.

What people need to remember is that Trump's economic issue is far different than the housing crisis Obama faced. Trump has to fight both a pandemic and mass fear as well as the economic situation. Obama only needed to focus on correcting the housing issue.

Democratic Hypocrisy over Protests and Riots is Insane

Democratic leaders are supporting protesters and rioters first amendment rights to assemble but they will give these same rights workers and religious followers. While it is okay to violate stay at home orders to protest and riot, it is not acceptable for workers and religious followers to congregate even when they follow social distance guidelines. Recently, the Supreme Court held that governments could restrict first amendment rights of religious workers even when the same standard was not applied to other activities and businesses. This is the definition of discrimination. The Constitution is about applying rights and laws to businesses and persons equally regardless of their demographics. Yet, time and time again this simple rule is not followed. You can read my book "Defending Freedom of Contract" to see egregious violations of the law.

I am sure no will hold Democrats accountable if protests results in more Covid 19 spreading. Nor will they be held accountable for their strict lockdown guidelines if there is no spike in cases from the protests proving that the lockdown orders were extreme. Either way, these inept leaders should be ridiculed and cannot win.

In 2019 10 unarmed blacks were killed by police and 20 unarmed whites were killed by police. In the 10 black cases, at least 5 the police officer was physically attacked. Charges against police officers were filed in 2 cases. The claims of racism and genocide are ridiculous. At the same time there were nearly 50 police officers murdered last year and much more than 10 have been killed by rioters. Sure people are allowed to protest, but I do not see the justification for protests and certainly not riots. The police officers in the George Floyd case were charged and hopefully sentenced to prison the rest of their lives. Justice is being served. But that is not enough to stop folks from destroying cities and the Democrats are allowing it. Heck, Biden and Obama surrogates are bailing out rioters that attacked people with Molotov cocktails so they can go back out on the street to do it again. Why? Because the unrest will bring down Trump. It is okay to support murderers for political gain.

One thing that is not getting much mention is that George Floyd tested positive for Covid 19. Apparently he was asymptomatic. But he was not wearing a mask. Do not get me wrong, Floyd was unnecessarily murdered. That said, Floyd was putting hundreds at risk with his behavior and he too may have unnecessarily killed other people by spreading Covid 19. Why are Democratic leaders up in arms about this callous behavior?

Stay-at-home-orders Amicus Brief (Part II)

Introduction

The United States is a republic, not a democracy. In a republic, sovereignty rests with the citizens and not with state or federal governments. As such, it is not the duty of government to protect the rights of a majority, but to protect the fundamental rights of all citizens equally. After all, majorities are often wrong such as in Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (slavery), Bradwell v. Illinois 83 U.S. 130 (1873) (deny women’s rights), and Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896) (segregation). A fundamental right is self-evident to all or one that there is no disputing. Fundamental rights may be both enumerated or unenumerated and include the right to work, play, friendships (associations), marriage, health, life, property, contracts, knowledge, enjoyment of nature and arts, self-defense, self-preservation, religion, family, free speech, the right to vote, travel, and justice.

Covid 19 brought about unique circumstances causing strict government stay-at-home orders leading to the loss of many of the fundamental rights listed above including the right to work, play, friendships, contracts, knowledge, enjoyment of nature, and travel. Conversely, government restrictions during the Covid 19 crisis may also be viewed as protecting citizen’s rights to life and health. What is compounding the conflict between government and citizens is that the priority of fundamental rights among citizens is vastly different. While some may view their health and life as the most important rights, others may view family, religion, education, and work more important. After all, life without other rights is meaningless. What’s more, the prioritization of rights among citizens can change depending on the circumstances. For instance, does religion take precedence over work on days other than Sunday? Does religion take precedence over playing with one’s kids all the time? Does religion take precedence over one’s health all the time? Of course not, hence individual priorities are always in flux. The government historically can deny rights in four ways. First, they may deny rights because of a national emergency or crisis. Second, they may deny unenumerated rights using rational basis scrutiny. Third, they may deny rights because they regard some rights in a higher standing than other rights. In other words, by creating a hierarchy of rights. Finally, they may deny rights because they place limitations on fundamental rights.

That said, government has the right to deny fundamental rights if two predicates are met:

1. Government must have a compelling reason such as to protect the health and safety of citizens from Covid 19. Thus, the government meets this requirement.

2. The government must use the least evasive method to achieve its objective. This requirement has not been met. Part of the reason why governments fail to adhere to consequentialism doctrines such as “do the ends justify the means” and “the least evasive method to achieve its objective” is because they are impossible to measure since they are defined vastly different depending on the person. Furthermore, consequentialism documents are easy to manipulate depending on biases, opinions, and agendas of legislators.

Thus, usually the government only has to meet point 1 above to deny rights because point 2 is arbitrary. Hence, a better guideline or requirement is needed to protect the rights of individuals. This brief tries to define a better mechanism for protecting rights in four steps. First, rights need to be protected because sovereignty lies with the citizen. Second, to better define unenumerated and enumerated fundamental rights that require protection at all cost. Third, to demonstrate why government laws seldom use the least evasive method to deny rights. Finally, to make suggestions that would be beneficial to protect both government and citizen objectives.