The Standard Model’s Fatal Contradiction
The medical establishment has long promoted a simple narrative: the basal ganglia, limbic
system, and amygdala form a protective network that activates fight-or-flight responses in
dangerous situations. This story appears in every textbook, every anxiety treatment
protocol, every explanation of stress responses.
But the research tells a different story.
What the Research Actually Shows
1. Freeze Dominates, Not Fight-or-Flight
Research by Roelofs (2017) in “Freeze for action: neurobiological mechanisms in animal
and human freezing” reveals that freezing is actually the predominant response to threat in
both humans and animals. This immediately contradicts the fight-or-flight narrative.
If these neural systems evolved for protection, why do they most commonly trigger a
response that:
- Inhibits movement
- Maintains high physiological arousal
- Creates conditions incompatible with either fighting or fleeing
2. White Coat Hypertension: The Measurement Trap
Grassi et al. (2019) documented how merely measuring blood pressure in medical settings
can spike readings to dangerous levels:
- Systolic pressures jumping to 190+
- Diastolic readings over 120
- Heart rates exceeding 180 bpm
These are not survival-promoting responses. At these levels:
- Fighting becomes physically impossible
- Running becomes dangerous
- Organ damage becomes likely
3. The “Protection” That Kills
Studies on sympathetic nervous system overactivation show how these supposedly
protective responses can cause:
- Heart damage
- Vascular problems
- Cognitive impairment
- Long-term health deterioration
The Institutional Blindness
Despite this evidence, the medical establishment continues to:
- Promote the fight-or-flight narrative
- Label dangerous physiological responses as “protective”
- Ignore the contradictions in their own model
Why This Matters
This isn’t just an academic debate. This contradictory model:
- Misleads people about their own bodily responses
- Promotes dangerous misunderstandings about anxiety
- Justifies treatments based on flawed premises
- Gaslight patients who question the narrative
The Real Question
If these neural systems consistently:
- Trigger freezing instead of action
- Push vital signs to dangerous levels
- Create conditions that prevent either fighting or fleeing
- Cause long-term health damage
Then how can we continue calling them protective? The research exposes a fundamental
truth: these systems, as they function in modern humans, often create more harm than
protection.
Breaking Free from the Narrative
The first step toward better understanding and treatment is acknowledging that:
- The standard model contradicts itself
- These “protective” responses often aren’t protective
- We need new frameworks that acknowledge these realities
The research is clear. The only question is: how long will institutions continue ignoring their
own evidence to maintain a contradictory narrative that harms rather than helps?
