- Culture Issues: Synopsis
- Culture Issues: 1) the lack of a basic scientific Culture: the inability to discern between true and false
- Culture Issues: 2) The need to reporting information to a (really) scientific dimension
In the previous chapter we saw how today we live in a socio / cultural situation in which it is possible to develop a strong manipulation of information that does not allow people to find valid scientific information to understand how things really are (this applies both to citizens and for the heads of the institutions). <see>
First, to put things right so that we can be able to understand what the truthful information is (i.e. whether it is based on scientific elements)
it is necessary to trace the information
coming from both institutional sources,
and from the “alternative” ones,
to a truly scientific dimension.
And upstream of everything, it is necessary to bring back to a scientific dimension (to rational arguments that strictly follow the scientific canons) the arguments that are at the basis of the question of the health of the human organism (points that are developed in the following two chapters):
■ what are the foundations of institutional theories (for example of Medicine) and those of “alternative” theories
By clarifying this point, you can get an idea, case by case, on the validity of specific therapies of institutional or “alternative” medicine <see>
■ what is Disease *, and the meaning of the concept of care.
Only by having in mind – from a purely scientific point of view – what is Disease and Treatment one can be able to understand the truthfulness of health-related information <see>
2.A ■ THE BASIS OF INSTITUTIONAL MEDICINE AND OF THE SO-CALLED ALTERNATIVE MEDICINES
The lack of understanding of how things are in people’s health issues (both individually and socially) is at the root of problems such as those currently caused by Coronavirus.
One of the first points to be clarified, upstream of everything, is “the why” for the information coming both from institutional channels and from the Mainstream media (as much from non-institutional channels as those related to the so-called Alternative Medicine.).
That is, it is necessary to clarify the difference between institutional Medicine and the so-called alternative medicines.
THE “ALTERNATIVE” MEDICINE (also called Holistic Medicine)
It is the Medicine used by the Human Being since its appearance on Earth (it also had a substantial role in institutional Medicine until a few decades ago).
The fact is that modern institutional medicine believes it has overcome, with the “progress” of chemical technologies (modern medicines) and electronic technologies (the machines used today in hospitals, to which Coronavirus patients are connected, for example) , the culture of traditional medicine linked to human health problems.
holistic Medicine doesn’t “fight” a disease,
but it acts on the human organism
to strengthen its healing abilities.
In fact, in this context the concept of disease is not taken into consideration in the sense known today in the West, since
the disease taken into consideration
by Institutional Medicine
is nothing more than
a symptom of an ongoing process in the human body
(the disease in its essence develops at a much deeper level than that on which we act today with institutional treatments).
Based on this consideration, acting on the symptoms not only does not allow the problem to be resolved effectively: Institutional treatments creates collateral problems that damage the organism on which one intervenes.
Alternative medicine officially recognized by the institutions is Homeopathy.
In summary, in alternative Medicines such as Homeopathy, disease is not fought
1) because there is nothing to fight: it is only symptoms. That is, the “disease develops at another level on which it is instead necessary to intervene effectively.
2) because fighting the disease (a virus or a bacterium) creates side effects that hinder the body’s healing (this is indicated in the instruction sheets of each medicine).
These side effects, it should be noted, have another important contraindication: they put the patient in a position to take other diseases, which must subsequently be cured.
Homeopathic Medicine is based on absolutely scientific demonstrations (the criticisms that are addressed to it are in fact based only on arguments without rational foundations)
Further on (in the chapter “the differences between the two forms of Medicine”) we see how Homeopathic medicine not only does not produce the collateral damage of institutional Medicine treatments, but also how it is decidedly “sustainable” than the latter (significantly lower costs ).
The Institutional Western Medicine
Premise: we must bear in mind that institutional Medicine has actually changed substantially in recent years, so much so that it should probably be called post-modern Medicine (doctors who exercised 30 years ago were in difficulty communicating with younger doctors – who today are at the highest level of the Institutions of Medicine).
Institutional Medicine today set aside methodologies that were at its basis (such as the idea that to solve a symptom it is necessary to act on the causes of the problem: today this approach has been entirely replaced with the “Protocols” – a question analyzed later – which indicate the treatments to be applied according to the symptom, without feeling the need to deepen the diagnosis.
In essence, Western institutional medicine
1) it is allopathic: it identifies a “disease” and fights it (in reality for homeopathic Medicine it is only the symptoms, since the disease develops at a deeper level – with Homeopathy, instead, one intervenes without “fighting”, elevating the body’s healing abilities).
2) it is linked to the Protocols, and no longer to a diagnosis that searches for the causes of the disease (in the Protocols the treatment is based on the symptoms).
Medicine based on protocols
Modern institutional medicine strictly adheres to the Protocols (the doctor may incur serious legal problems if he does not comply with them), which are based solely on an identification of the symptoms, against which all the steps to be followed strictly for “treatments” the disease.
This type of approach – relatively new, which changes the substance in institutional Western Medicine – is implemented without feeling the need to deepen the diagnosis (researching the cause of the disease)
Note that the principle of causality “is considered to be fundamental to all natural science” (Wikipedia, Causality). And therefore a Medicine that is based on the “Protocols” cannot be considered a Science.
To understand why the Protocols must be followed in such a rigid way it is necessary to understand that they are born with a primarily legal purpose. In other words, they were created to regulate (standardize) the interventions of the Public Health System on Patients.
The fact is that the laws are extremely rigid towards doctors – which is theoretically correct from an institutional point of view: in “mass medicine” it is necessary to standardize the operating procedures. Doctors can therefore be punished with sanctions that literally ruin their career – and life – and therefore end up worrying more about compliance with the protocol than the health of the patient.
While, paradoxically, the Doctor knows that he will not suffer legal consequences if he follows the Protocol, even if he knows that such treatments can cause harm to the Patient (such negative consequences that are explicitly indicated as “contraindications” in official treatments).
The paradoxical question is that in such a context if the doctor “follows the protocol” it cannot be condemned even if the patient dies. While if it does not follow the protocol it can still be severely sanctioned (in the event that unforeseen complications arise during the visit).
In this way
institutional medicine becomes an absolute Monopoly,
since in such Protocols
treatments are also indicated
that cannot be used,
such as vitamins, spices, etc for the prevention or treatment of diseases.
Obviously in the West the doctor who prescribes “alternative” remedies, because of these protocols ends up living with the fear of being reported even if the treatment has not produced damage to the patient.
The case of Doctors convicted of prescribing homeopathic treatments for patients who subsequently died is significant in how much the accusations addressed are devoid of : the accusation in these cases is in fact that it is that with traditional treatment the patient would have survived.
But this argument is false, for several reasons:
● there is no proof that Homeopathy can kill patients (in fact there are no accusations of this type, but there is only talk of guilt for not having chosen institutional care).
● it is not possible to prove that the official Medicines would have healed the patient, since in the serious cases (it is these we are talking about) the healing possibilities for the Institutional Medicine are not very high (the Coronavirus case demonstrates this aspect of the problem).
And, on the other hand, it is not taken into account that the treatment of institutional medicine is the cause of many deaths every year, by the same admission of the medical institutions (see next chapter).
The Medicine based on “specialization”
In institutional Medicine, we think by sectors (medical specialties), thus sacrificing the overall view of the problem we face.
In other words, institutional medicine intervenes on a specific part of the human body (in a complex disease, more “specialists” intervene in the patient’s care). While in Homeopathy, the body is intervened in its entirety, so that it enhances its healing abilities (this applies, more generally, to alternative medicines).
One of the problems of institutional Medicine, which is substantially specialized, is that there is never a person who has an overview (detailed) to make decisions that take into account the health of all parts of the body involved in the decision, since:
● in the ordinary case, when the “local Doctor” makes the decisions on the treatment, it is based on a reading of the reports of the specialists, but it does not have the specific culture of these specialties to evaluate the validity of these reports.
● in the most serious cases, in which it is necessary to resort to “specialist care” – or hospitalization – the patient is taken over by a specialized structure (the department of a hospital) in which you have a decidedly partial view of how a treatment process must be developed (vision that is often not shared by other specialists). In fact, it must be taken into account that the specialist has practically always worked by operating on specific parts of the human body, and lacks complete experience on the effects of his actions.
The problem of specialist care does not exist in the case of Homeopathy (just as there is no problem, in most cases, the problem of hospitalization).
A Medicine with many problems
There are many problems created by “official” Western Medicine (although there are also important advantages that this Medicine has brought to humanity).
The fact is that these problems are almost totally censored by the Mainstream media, and they are mostly not known by people (who should instead be informed about the positive and negative qualities of the types of treatments they adopt).
Institutional medicine treatments can do more harm than healing
Official branches of institutional medicine reveal to us – based on scientific studies approved by international scientific institutions – that the treatments of this medicine very often cause serious harm to the patient (leading to death).
The number of such deaths is actually staggering for those who have never followed these events: for example
in the USA, institutional hospital deaths
are the third leading cause of total deaths
(to get an idea, the annual deaths are 250,000, much higher than those from road accidents).
In 2016 with the title “Medical error – the third leading cause of death in the US” the B.M.J. (British Medical Journal) a study by oncologists Martin Makary and Michael Daniel (Department of Surgery at Johns Hopkins University) shows that medical errors kill more than 250,000 people a year in hospital (out of 2.6 million deaths – i.e. 10% of deaths due to illness are caused by human errors or by drugs).
In Italy these deaths would be 50,000 according to Assiform, while the Irccs National Cancer Institute Foundation estimates that “a realistic estimate sets the number of deaths at 30-35 thousand a year” (July 2019). However a considerable number.
Another document from Institutional Medicine – 2004, “Death by Medicine” – estimates that 783,936 Americans die each year from institutional medicine.) (1)https://chiro.org/LINKS/FULL/Death_By_Medicine.html)
We must consider that if we compare the deaths in the world related to the two medicines, institutional and homeopathic, in the first case we have millions of deaths every year (with strictly scientific data), while in the second case we have only a very limited number of alleged deaths because of it (these are cases without real documentation).
The lack of validity of these latest accusations is clear:
● these are not accusations certified by in-depth scientific analyzes (based on ), but only by “media” accusations based on information disclosed by journalists without real specific preparation.
● the accusations per se are not correctly formulated: iit would be mostly deaths in which it is assumed that patients would be healed with institutional Medicine. But this is only a personal conviction of the writer, who does not take into account not only that even in institutional Medicine a percentage of cases do not heal, but that in many cases with institutional medicine the patient dies due to the treatments (for this statement there are the “scientific evidence”, while for deaths due to Homeopathy, note, in reality only allegations of ineffectiveness are formulated).
This is evident if we examine the case of cancer treatment, in which scientific studies have shown that chemotherapy does not contribute more than 2% to survival “The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to the five-year survival of tumors in adults”, “Clinical Oncology “, December 2004 (2) https://www.clinicaloncologyonline.net/article/S0936-6555(04)00222-5/fulltext
In addiction, Chemotherapy has very negative effects on the heart to the point that 1 in 3 patients die not from cancer but from cancer therapies. In a U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination survey of 1,807 is shown as between cancer survivors followed for 7 years, 33% died of heart diseases and 51% of cancer. (3) an article by Y. Ning, Q. Shen, K. Herrick, et al. “Cause of death in cancer survivors cited” on “Journal of the American College of Cardiology” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109714043162
If this information were properly disclosed, individuals and governmental institutions could make decisions with greater awareness.
2.B ■ WHAT ARE DISEASES (AND TREATMENTS)
In order to be able to discern which truth-related and non-scientific information is between health-related information, it is necessary to clarify first – in a correct scientific way – what is a disease (and therefore what is a treatment).
And to understand what a disease is, it is necessary to understand, among other things, the difference between Virus and Bacterium.
While the bacterium is a living organism, the virus is not a living organism at all, but it is something similar to the computer virus: it is a carrier of information that confuses the functioning of the system it enters (this is also the description provided by institutional Medicine).
That is, the virus attaches to the cells of the human organism causing them to behave abnormally.
When it is induced by a virus, then:
● disease is a matter of transmitting INFORMATION: in the action of the virus there is no such thing as a “physical attack “on the cells of the human body, but a transmission of information that alters the behavior of the cells to which they bind.
● the disease depends on the so-called terrain* conditions on which the virus ends. Only a part of the people who host the virus in their bodies get sick (this also applies to the bacterium): in other people the body continues to function as if the virus did not exist.
The thing works as for the seed of a vegetable, which takes root only when it ends up on a terrain* functional to its development. And the human body itself is not functional to the action of the virus: the disease develops only where there is a lack of “health” in the body.
This is the fundamental point:
the virus is not the cause of the disease
(many people who host the virus in their body don’t get sick). Them are the people whose organism (the terrain) is not inherently healthy, who get sick.
Both the defense ability of the organism against the virus and the ability to heal from disease depend on the quality of the terrain. In fact, in Homeopathy, acting on the quality of the “terrain” improves both the ability not to get sick and the ability to heal from disease.
● the issue of the transmission of information as the cause of virus diseases
So viral disease is
a matter of “communication” between the virus and the body
(the virus is not a living organism, but only an information carrier).
In other words, it happens that the virus contacts a cell in the body and manages to change its behavior: like the computer virus, by supplying the cell with incorrect information, it produces incorrect body behavior.
● the question of the quality of the terrain* where the Virus ends
So the disease is not automatically generated by the Virus: for the virus to develop its process it is necessary that it finds a terrain* favorable to the action for which it is programmed.
Things work here as for the seed of a vegetable: the seed is dispersed in the environment, and all the surrounding land is “contaminated”.
But the seed that ends up on a stone, or on an asphalted road, will not take root. While those who end up on other terrains can take root in measure of the compatibility of the terrain with their task.
It should therefore be noted that
the virus is not really responsible for the disease:
the spread of a virus simply highlights
the shortage of some human organisms
Experience shows us how an epidemic develops not because there are viruses in the environment (people can take the virus but not get sick), but because a part of the community in which it develops there are organisms that do not work as they should at that moment.
This is the case, for example, for the classic seasonal flu epidemic within a school class: practically all students – being in close contact with each other for hours – “catch” the virus, but only some of them get sick.
For this reason, alternative Medicines such as Homeopathy focus their attention on “terrain*” (this allows, among other things, Homeopathy to be effective even in the prevention of disease phase).
The ability of the “terrain” not to let the action of the virus develop depends on many factors. In general, the better the immune system works (from the goodness of the person’s psycho-physical system), the better the possibility of preventing the development of the “disease”.
This also applies to the treatment: by improving the quality of the soil, the disease is cured.
For this reason, alternative Medicines (such as Homeopathy) pay particular attention to this aspect: them use remedies that make the human organism healthier.
Some of these remedies are rejected by the institutions, such as vitamins (medical protocols prevent the use of vitamins as a cure).
Note the naive level of institutional criticism of the use of “non-pharmacological” substances such as vitamins, in which slogans such as “Vitamin does not heal from the Virus” are used, meaning that Vitamins do not kill the virus.
A play on words in which it is understood that the virus cannot be killed with vitamins: but healing takes place because the virus can no longer survive when it does not meet a favorable terrain (a healthy terrain which, in fact, is favored by the use of Vitamins).
Based on these considerations, it is necessary to review “the fight” against epidemics:
it is not a question of not “catching” the virus, but of having a healthy organism that reacts in the best way to the virus.
Note how with the Social lockdown used to fight Coronavirus, instead of mitigating the effects of the epidemic, it got worse. In fact, in this way the conditions were created for the epidemic to last longer (and the Social lockdown should be prolonged). See the issue of “ ”.