Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.
Curing illness and preventing death have been the focus of most medical systems throughout recorded history. Symptoms, and their underlying causes, have dominated debates and research about disease.
For hundreds of years in western medical science, the central paradigm for developing therapies has rested on the supposition that each malady is the result of a single dangerous invasive element. Fundamental treatment usually involves dispelling a contaminant from the patient.
Poor health is presumed to have a foundational cause — the body is violated by something with destructive intent and force.
There are many advances in technological medicine that have saved lives. Medical science has made incredible progress in the repair and replacement of organs and limbs.
The evolution of micro-surgery represents the cutting edge of engineering. New therapies have made previously deadly cancers treatable.
Yet despite insightful developments in biology and genetics, the incredibly complex natural processes of the human body remain far from fully understood.
A static view is usually applied to disease — it is deemed something that must be eradicated. The remedies of choice are poisonous concoctions used to suppress symptoms or overwhelm pathogens.
Although new treatments and drugs have been developed, essentially the approach to health has not changed. That’s because the basic underlying philosophy and perspective of medical research and practice have not evolved along with technology.
New techniques, old habits
Without deeper knowledge of what sustains good health, evaluations of maladies are dominated by tests and statistics, and extremis of illness is assessed by need for hospitalization or risk of death.
In place of a sophisticated, philosophical approach, current medical practice maintains a false veil of modernity.
Failures in treatment reveal how most diseases continue to be framed as a corporal encroachment.
Bloodletting was a common practice for millennia through the late 19th century, applied for many maladies. The belief that the human body required purging from detrimental substances was the central guiding principle.
The need to expel deleterious parts or pathogens from the body continues to drive most therapies today.
Medical science hasn’t begun to understand the power of natural disease immunity. The ability of the endocrine and nervous systems to seamlessly integrate in maximizing vitality, even in the face of increasing challenges, is phenomenal.
The precarious belief that we have reached an apex of understanding the human body has engendered other false assumptions, including that medicine can improve biology with powerful disruptive drugs, including vaccines.
The concept of vaccination is relatively new. Claims of accomplishments contradict statistics, while conjecture regarding practicality and safety are presented with finality.
Epidemics arise where the benefits of a vaccine might outweigh its risks. Until more enlightened solutions are developed, their application should be openly debated, and then used with great caution.
There are legitimate concerns about what vaccines can be safely injected into a child or adult in the name of preventing illness. The hazards, particularly with additives and contaminants, have resulted in the recall of some vaccines.
Until generational studies can be done, including the effects on fertility, no one can make any claim about long-term safety.
The application conforms with the archaic arsenal of medical science — it is a weapon used against an opponent that must be conquered.
Vaccination therapy assumes the human body needs training to best defend itself. Following the logic of this highly questionable notion, in this current conflict the enemy appears to have found ways to camouflage and evolve.
If the pandemic is seen as a war, the use of vaccines could lead to many casualties and disastrous collateral damage.
The battle with disease
Within decades, experts will likely view the use of vaccines — promoted to defy viral infection — as misguided, similar to how we now regard bloodletting.
When general health is maximized, no vaccine comes close to offering the protection provided by the sophisticated and complex human immune system. With balanced vitality, our bodies instinctively eliminate microorganisms that don’t belong.
Pathogens are rarely the primary cause of ailments. As within the rest of nature, microorganisms most often thrive when the process of deterioration has already begun.
Most that live on or in humans are beneficial. Some bacteria are key components of digestion — we would die without them.
In the 20th century, the development of penicillin brought a profound impact to life-threatening infections and traumatic injuries with sepsis.
However, there are growing concerns that overuse of antibiotics, both in humans and animals, has engendered more powerful and more dangerous bacteria.
Medical science relentlessly continues to attack disease and pathogens without recognizing that suppression is a tactic with great risks.
There is growing awareness that this approach frequently engenders more virulent mutations and manifestations of underlying causes.
The ongoing notion that we must battle illness at all costs is an insidious problem. Attempting to destroy pathogens, or relying solely on a vaccine to defend against a toxic force, exacerbates the faulty logic that has driven treatment of disease since the Middle Ages.
Our well-being is founded on establishing harmony with our environment, and is exemplified by our innate immunity to microbes that might harm us.
But instead of gauging wellness on continuity with nature, the barometer of the success of public health is defined mostly by the battles won with medications and defying death.
The statistics about increased life expectancy for industrialized countries are less telling when compared to regions of the world where stress is minimal, air, water and soil are clean, and a nutritious diet is the cultural norm.
In some of those places, people have lived for more than 100 years without medical intervention.
The central thrust of modern medicine is based on a fearful, feudal model that eclipses the importance of life-style. Although they are key factors in avoiding illness, diet and environment are rarely mentioned by the medical establishment.
The irrational dread of a viral pandemic exemplifies how the medical world has projected its obsolete mania on to humanity.
People want to avoid pain and sickness, but they know that their quality of life is more precious than anything else.
Good health, even in the midst of a pandemic, can’t be measured by defiance of death or how well a medical system dispenses products.
Fear and loathing in the plague
As the philosophy of medical science staunchly remains in the Dark Ages, those who seek an alternative approach to maintaining health are marginalized.
In recent decades, there has been movement towards an enlightened approach in response to this ongoing challenge.
Compounding the current situation, the militant response to the pandemic has stalled necessary changes and further entrenched the vested medical mindset. The crisis has revealed, and furthered, detrimental attitudes towards illness and disease.
We are repeatedly told malicious forces are assaulting us in the form of a microorganism, and that this loathsome virus is intent on destabilizing humanity and every tier of society.
The vehemence of the counter-attack against the virus is telling — the pathogen and its mutations are enemies that we will need to fight perpetually. Those who defy the prescribed approach in any way are deemed heretics.
Similar views dominated during previous pandemics.
Although the greatest plague in modern history caused much more misery and mortality, the response to the Black Death that ravaged Europe in the mid-14th century has disturbing parallels to our current experience.
The bubonic plague engendered horrific suffering and often caused death within days of infection. Those who survived were deeply shocked and scarred, finding themselves in an unrecognizable world.
The pandemic is estimated to have killed half the population of Europe. Many factors contributed to its transmission. Treatments were mostly limited to exorcisms, bloodletting and poisonous concoctions that often killed the patient before the disease.
Widespread terror heightened divisiveness. Overt blame was laid at the feet of those who deviated from the dominant culture of the era. As the horizon darkened, hostility increased, with innocent people jailed, tortured or killed as punishment for their alleged responsibility for bringing the pestilence.
Infidels were burned at the stake because they held minority beliefs. They were identified as the source of the evil scourge that had spread through most villages, cities and provinces.
Although the Black Death pushed ignorance and hostility to new heights, the Renaissance emerged out of the darkness. An enlightened era fueled creativity in the general sciences, arts and philosophy, eventually leading to the rise of more democratic societies.
Yet medical science remained obsessed with morbidity and mortality.
The science of death
Physicians from Europe arrived for the first time in China in the late 16th century. The traditional doctors who met them found their approach to the human body peculiar. They seemed to know very little about the source of wellness or methods to prevent illness.
They were told about the reliance on dissecting cadavers to understand the human body. These doctors, whose training was in ancient and sophisticated folk medicine, concluded that the observation of the static anatomy of the dead overshadowed the physiology of the living.
The Chinese philosopher-physicians regarded western medicine as the science of death.
Over the following centuries, an ever-narrowing focus was applied to understanding disease, ultimately symbolized by a microscope in search of deadly pathogens.
Virtually ignoring a wider view and analysis of creative process, medicine became focused on finding nearly invisible beasts which were still believed to be the core source of affliction.
A long time coming
Many people believe the recent vaccine rollout is enlightened by achievements of the highest order, including how quickly a specific remedy for COVID-19 was released.
Those who are not convinced that a wonder drug has been developed are intimidated by the hostility of a vociferous majority.
The defenders of vaccination insist that indisputable, objective medical facts have determined the approach to the pandemic. Their dogmatic arguments all are based on the false assumption that the virus is an enemy to be eradicated, and the vaccine is the singular weapon of choice.
Alternative views are rejected with absolutism. By dismissing debate and mirroring the intolerance of the Dark Ages, harsh critics of the unvaccinated confirm their reactionary and hypocritical position.
Those who deny that the philosophical approach to disease is mired in the past, angrily assert that the advances of modern medicine are unassailable. Challenging the medical establishment’s majority position is now forbidden.
At the heart of the polarized debate is the definition of disease — everyone has a right to participate in implementing a model for good health.
Insistence on one point of view and supporting mandates to enforce it, reflects how an antiquated system has infected the populace and politics with medieval perspective and policies.
A mortal threat can cause an atheist to speak with god, convert a pacifist into a warrior, or transform a humanitarian into a fascist. Fear of the unknown, particularly when potential illness and death are looming, evokes the worst of human instincts.
Even the president of the United States feels he is empowered to further intensify the divide, blaming the unvaccinated for failures in the war on the virus.
Figuratively, dissenters are now burned at the stake, and from a psychological perspective, this condemnation is no different from 14th century nobles and priests denouncing innocent people for causing the plague.
This insanity prevails because the proponents of inoculation have been assured by the infallible gods of medicine and their devoted ministry that the unvaccinated are responsible for the continuing pandemic.
They have no doubt that those who question this edict exhibit the height of irresponsibility in the war against a destructive virus. Everyone must give unwavering support to the government’s plan to defeat the dark elements causing the plague.
Leaders and supporters have transformed into a hostile mob, grandly claiming that any scientist, doctor or journalist who questions the strategy of the battle is a dangerous liar and apostate. They insist the existential public health threat to every nation must be faced with a unified front.
This irate and intractable position is a thinly veiled charade.
Unrelenting vehemence and angry tirades are directly proportional to fears and doubts. A dogmatic stance is never an enlightened position — it reflects a need to suppress any dissent that reveals insecurity.
When anger fails, enforced dictates follow. However, the implementation of medical mandates with draconian tactics are ultimately detrimental to public health.
Echoing the irrational fears of medical science, and absurdly invoking the power of a threatening microbe, most governments will soon lose credibility in the handling of the pandemic.
The enemy is not the virus nor the unvaccinated. The only true threats are fear and intolerance.
To face this disease, we need an enlightened approach, particularly in developing innovative prevention for those at greatest risk and effective treatments for those who are ill.
A cabal with questionable morals and motives should not determine our future. Modern medicine will remain capricious and deeply flawed until a new open-minded, creative philosophy is applied to limiting disease.
The appropriate response to any genuine public health crisis needs to be debated, discussed and implemented with calm demeanor by the broadest range of informed individuals.
Establishing wellness begins with rational and ethical discussion about what is truly effective, including a renewed emphasis on the importance of good nutrition.