Writing in 1989, Chopra was justified in saying that advanced scientific medicine was “at a loss to duplicate the impaired function” of the body of hemophiliacs. But in this particular case, we don’t have to wait a hundred years! Since 1993, recombinant factor products – which are typically cultured in Chinese hamster ovary tissue cells and involve little, if any, human plasma products – have been available and widely used. In early 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration approved Xyntha anti-haemophilic factor, genetically engineered from the genes of Chinese hamster ovary cells. (N.B. Of course, we don’t expect mind-body doctors to pull their heads out of the sand and acknowledge such developments. It is a characteristic of mystic gurus to be oblivious to any change in science, because all the scientific advances have been materialistic, reductionistic, genetic, and molecular biological developments.)
Intelligent hydrogen atom
Chopra has not yet found the source of the intelligence in cells. To find it, he casually and opportunistically exploits the great discoveries of scientific medicine. He then immediately turns around and starts degrading it by complaining about the shortcomings of what his medical school taught him about neurons, namely that they communicated through electrical signals across synapses. He is equally dissatisfied with his medical textbooks: ” … the description we learned in our neurology textbook in 1966 told us next to nothing about how neurons act in real life.” (p. 50)
Is it not possible that Chopra’s neurology textbook in 1966 contained next to nothing about how neurons act in real life because neurons were not fully understood at that time? Is it not true that the biology textbooks in 1950 said next to nothing about the double helix and the DNA molecule? Is it not also true that the biology textbooks in 1830 said next to nothing about the germ theory of diseases? And physics textbooks of 1910 said nothing about the nucleus of the atom? Science is not the content of some ancient book as Ayurveda is, and the neurology textbook of 1966 is not the Charaka Samhita of neurology! Science is, to use Chopra’s own phrase, “a river not a sculpture.” It is constantly changing, with new discoveries being made on a daily basis, and its textbooks being revised accordingly.