Mykola Iabluchanskyi

  Science rarely arrives as a single revelation. More often, it accumulates — in clinical observations that don't fit the textbook, in questions that outlast careers, and in the partnerships that make sustained thinking possible. The theory I want to describe here is the product of all three. Vladimir Shlyakhover was once my student. He has long since become my colleague in science and my friend in life. We are both from Ukraine — he now lives in Israel, I in the United States. Between us we carry decades of clinical and research experience with the heart under stress. And together we have arrived at something we no longer call a hypothesis. We call it a theory — because the evidence, in our view, demands that elevation. The Two Diagnoses That Should Not Be Separate Cardiology has long maintained a clean boundary between two cardiac conditions. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI)  — the classic heart attack — is understood as the consequence of a blocked coronary artery: oxygen ...

  The most unsettling truth about neurodegenerative disease is not that it kills the body — it erases the person long before death arrives. The progressive loss of memory, language, judgment, and personality represents what some researchers now call a  Second Mortality : the dissolution of identity while biological life continues. This reality is pushing science and ethics toward a radical question — not "Can we cure the tissue?" but "Can we preserve the pattern?" The Failure We Cannot Engineer Around Modern medicine has made extraordinary gains in extending life, yet it remains largely powerless against the molecular cascade that dismantles the self. Amyloid plaques , tau tangles , synaptic loss, and microvascular damage accumulate over decades, disrupting the brain's ability to sustain the continuous narrative we call a person. Once neural networks fragment beyond a threshold of biological repair, no drug or lifestyle intervention can restore coherent identit...

  Modern medicine has achieved extraordinary things. It has conquered infections, extended lifespans, and developed technologies once unimaginable. Yet at its philosophical foundation lies a quiet contradiction — one that has shaped clinical practice, health policy, and global health institutions for generations. Official medicine has been built, and continues to operate, on a false opposition : the idea that health and disease are mutually exclusive categories, that to be healthy is simply to be without disease, and that to be sick is to be without health. Centuries of fundamental scientific research and clinical practice contradict this premise. So how did this happen? Sciences That Competed Instead of Converged When medicine and its branches were first emerging as distinct disciplines, they developed in isolation from one another. Progress was uneven — some fields advanced rapidly, others lagged behind due to circumstance, resources, or cultural context. When these fields even...