|
by Tracy Kolenchuk
January 29,
2019
from
Healthicine Website
Modern medicine, conventional medicine, allopathic medicine has many
names, but little science.
What should it be called?
Bureaucratic
Medicine...
Conventional medicine is
best understood as a complex set of bureaucracies.
What is a bureaucracy?
Eric Fromm in
To Have or To Be,
"The bureaucratic
method can be defined as one that:
-
administers human
beings as if they were things
-
administers
things in a quantitative rather than qualitative terms,
-
governed by
statistical data… Base their decisions on fixed rules
arrived from statistical data, rather than on response
to the living beings who stand before them… at the risk
of hurting the 5 or 10 percent of those who do not fit
into that pattern.
-
bureaucrats
fear responsibility and seek refuge behind their rules;
their security and pride lie in their loyalty to the
rules, not in their loyalty to the laws of the human
heart."
Our medical bureaucracies are wide
and deep, often consisting of groups of corporate and government
officials at the top, giving direction to lesser organizations, and
ultimately to individuals.
Let's look at a few of
the top bureaucratic organizations and issues in modern medicine.
The Official Medical
Bureaucracies
The World Health
Organization (WHO)
Is the worlds
top-level bureaucracy with regards to illness and disease. The
word "health" in their name is an Orwellian twist.
Although they hold
the officially recognized definition of health, written in 79
years ago and not updated since then.
The WHO
definition of health is simplistic and useless with
regards to measuring health.
WHO studies disease, and death
exclusively.
The primary output of
the World Health Organization is disease statistics. The words
healthicine and healthiness are not in their
dictionary.
They have no
techniques for evaluation or measurement of healthiness without
reference to disease.
ICD10 - ICD11 - The International Classification of Diseases
The World Health
Organization maintains the ICD10, the International
Classification of Diseases and Associated Disorders and is
currently working to release the next version,
the ICD11.
The ICD10 contains
over 70,000 disease codes - but no definition of disease. In
fact, their introductory pages clearly state,
"A critical point
in engaging with the ICD is that inclusion or exclusion is
not a judgment on the validity of a condition or the
efficacy of treatment."
The ICD bureaucracy
documents codes for diseases from around the world, in perfect
bureaucratic style, making no claim to validate any one of them
as actual diseases or medical conditions.
US/FDA
The FDA is the
official approval bureaucratic agency that approves drugs in the
USA.
According to the
US/FDA bureaucracy, only a drug can "claim to" prevent, treat,
or cure any disease. It's perfect bureaucratic nonsense -
extended to the extreme. Even more than the extreme.
The FDA does not limit the
bureaucratic definition of a drug to a medical pill - any
treatment that claims to prevent, treat, or cure a disease, is
officially a "drug".
It's obvious to
anyone that malnutrition, in its many variations - beri-beri,
scurvy, obesity, and more - cannot be prevented or cured by a
drug, they are cured by nutrition.
Any poisoning
disease, from carbon monoxide poisoning to zinc toxicity, cannot
be prevented by a drug, it can only be prevented by avoiding the
poison. But, if a treatment is not approved by the FDA, then
it's not an "official medicine".
Approval by the FDA
usually has nothing to do with the curative properties of any
treatment - but without approval, you cannot make a "sales
claim" that the treatment is effective.
Medical
Reference Books - Merck, Harrison's, Langes' and DSM-5
No medical reference book contains a definition of cure.
Although some use the
word cure - there is no consistency in the meanings applied to
cures. Medical reference books document "diseases" and "treatments"
without any indication of whether they move the patient towards, or
away from a state of being cured.
Non-infectious diseases
might all considered incurable, by lack of a scientific definition
of cured.
Mental Disorders
Mental disorders are incurable
by "lack of definition".
The DSM, the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders offers hope of
"eventual cures for these conditions", but at present, not a
single disease listed in the DSM can be cured.
But it's more than
just bureaucratic logic (or illogic)
Here's how it works:
BUT:
-
If the cause
was nutrition - cured with diet - it wasn't a mental
disease, it was malnutrition.
-
If the cause
was poison - cured by removing the poison - then it
wasn't a mental disease, it was a poison.
-
If the cause
was physical or mental abuse or isolation, and it is
cured by addressing the cause, then it wasn't a mental
disorder, it was caused by the cause.
-
If the cause
was a stress of any kind and it is cured by addressing
the cause, then it's not a mental illness, it's caused
by the stress.
In conclusion, if it
can be cured then it isn't a mental disorder. It is an illness
caused by whatever the cure addressed.
The latest edition of the DSM, the DSM-5, actually removed some
cases of depression from the list of mental disorders.
Why? Because they are
naturally cured by health.
The Players
Drug Manufacturers
and Marketers
In US/FDA speak all
treatments are drugs.
Drugs are not defined
by their benefits, they are defined by claims.
Drug manufacturers are in the business of selling drugs.
More sales = more
profit.
Drug companies want
products that produce high sales and high profits.
In general, this
leads to "new" drugs, which are then marketed as (but not
proven) to be more effective. It also leads to monopoly drugs,
which block honest attempts to improve the healthiness of
patients.
If a drug cannot be
patented, it does not make enough money to undertake the FDA
approval process - so it is ignored, or shamed, because its
success will take profits away from the "bureaucracy approved"
drugs.
Most drugs, and the
best selling drugs, make no claim and no attempt to
cure.
Researchers
Today's clinical
researchers, for all their pseudo-scientific rigor, are
bureaucratic agencies working to attain approval from
bureaucratic organizations like the FDA.
Almost all current
research studies are designed, written, approved and executed
without a definition of "cured".
As a result, if a
patient is cured within the study, the cure cannot be
documented, cannot be officially noticed. Research studies today
study "treatments" in preparation for market, but rarely attempt
to study cures.
Cures, except for
infectious diseases - cannot pass bureaucratic muster.
Medical Journals
Medical journals
publish research by the bureaucracy.
Research must
reference disease and must present statistical data about a
treatment. In the past, many medical journals published "case
studies" to share information found by doctors in the course of
their work.
But today, most
journals refuse to publish case studies, because
they contain "anecdotal evidence".
Of course, every case
of a cure is a single case, an anecdote, so no medical journal
will accept for review any research about a cure.
Fund-Raisers
Millions of dollars
are raised every year to "find a cure" for many different
diseases.
But none of these
fundraisers has a definition of CURED for the disease they are
supposedly fighting. They are raising funds for bureaucratic
research, that searches for non-curative treatments to be
approved by bureaucrats like
the US/FDA.
Not one disease
funding agency is working to define "cured" for their disease.
There is no need, and
no interest in defining cured - the bureaucracy that employs
them functions perfectly well without a definition. Fundraisers
might be out of a job if cured is defined.
If cures are found -
the fundraising bureaucracy might be out of business...
They are busy raising
funds and spending funds under the guise of a "cure" with no
intentions of curing anything.
Self-Appointed Skeptics
In Webster's
dictionary, a skeptic is,
"a person
disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion or
religious principles".
However, with regards
to the bureaucracies of medicine, a skeptic is akin to a
religious zealot, who believes entirely in the treatments
approved by the bureaucracy, and refuses religiously to believe
in the effectiveness of any other treatments.
There are many
individuals and groups that support the medical bureaucracy
under the guise of "skepticism." Their skepticism is limited to
any preventative, treatment, or cure that is NOT approved by the
bureaucracy.
The Most
Bureaucratic Medicines
Symptomicines
A symptomicine is a
medicine designed, tested, and approved to treat the signs and
symptoms of a disease - with no attempt to
cure...
Check your medicine
cabinet, walk over to your local drugstore, or search the
databases of the FDA. Try to find a medicine that claims to
"cure" any non-infectious disease. Don't hold your breath.
Most of today's
medicines are symptomicines.
Do symptomicines move
the patient closer to a cure, or farther away? We only know that
symptomicines do not address the cause, and therefore allow the
illness to progress and cause more damage.
Can any of them cure,
or aid a cure process? We don't know because the medical
bureaucracy does not study cures.
Preventatives
In the bureaucracy,
preventatives are big business.
No-one can make money
curing diseases - cured is not defined by the
bureaucracy. But there's tons of money to be made preventing
disease, and there's no requirement for proof.
Fluoride
Who can tell if a
case dental disease has been prevented
by fluoride? No-one.
It's sell, sell,
sell, with no accounting. Every toothpaste produced by the major
companies contains fluoride. Fluoride has been approved by the
bureaucracy.
There would be a huge
cost and only negative incentives to find something better.
Research would raise questions, and that would be bad for sales.
The sale of dental
prevention products has become a huge bureaucracy - and nobody
is going to challenge it, much less shift it.
If a better product
exists, nobody cares.
Vaccines
Vaccines have not
only been approved, they've been given the absolute bureaucratic
protection.
In the USA,
vaccines are above the courts
of law, above the supreme court. It is not possible, legally, to
take legal action for any damage done by a vaccine.
The bureaucracy is so
strong that in the USA it is not possible to PROVE any damage
has been done by a vaccine, even if compensation is paid for the
damage.
The law clearly
states that payment for damage is not proof of cause. And it's
against the law to use the courts of law to make a claim of
cause.
It's double
bureaucracy.
Sunscreen
Is marketed as a
'cancer preventative'.
Recent evidence has
shown that avoiding the sun leads to general unhealthiness more
dangerous than the danger of cancers caused by exposure to the
sun.
But that has not
slowed the sunscreen marketing bureaucrats.
Alternative Medicine?
What about alternative medical practices - are they just as
bureaucratic? Actually, no.
The phrase "alternative
medicine" is not recognized by the FDA. There are only bureaucratic
medicines (approved by the FDA) and treatments that are not
recognized. There is no bureaucratic approval process for an
alternative medicine.
If it is approved by the
bureaucracy - it's no longer an alternative medicine.
However, that's not to say that all alternative medicines are
better, just that they are outside of the prevailing bureaucracy.
Clearly, some are better, some are not. In most cases - its official
- we don't know.
The bureaucracy is not
interested in researching alternative treatments - it's up to the
vendor to apply for approval. But approval is expensive, and the
benefits of approval - for most alternative treatments - are very
low.
However, if you want a cure for your illness, and your bureaucratic
diagnosis is one of:
-
a non-infectious
disease (arthritis, Alzheimers, depression, diabetes, gout,
hypertension, obesity, etc)
-
a mental disorder
(depression, schizophrenia, etc)
-
a chronic disease
(asthma, COPD, cystic fibrosis, etc),
...you cannot find a cure
in conventional medicine - cured being not defined by
the bureaucracy...
If you are seeking a
cure, then by definition, you must seek a treatment
outside of the conventional medical system. You must seek an
alternative treatment.
If you successfully cure your disease, the medical bureaucracy will
simply ignore your claim. Even if you cure hundreds of people, all
claims will be ignored.
There are many examples,
but perhaps the most egregious at present is Type 2 Diabetes.
There are thousands of
people who claim to have cured their diabetes. At least one
scientific research agency has reported "reversal" of diabetes -
cured being not defined in the bureaucracy.
No-one in the bureaucracy
cares...
More Medical
Bureaucratic Nonsense
Anecdotal Evidence
If you find a cure
for your disease, it will be dismissed by the bureaucracy as
"anecdotal evidence".
Of course, every cure
is a single case of an illness in a single patient. Every cure
is an anecdote. But the bureaucracy hates anecdotal evidence -
it upsets the statistical bureaucratic applecart.
If you cure your
disease with an alternative medical treatment, the cure will be
ignored. Your doctor might acknowledge it, but cures are not
counted.
Cured is not
defined... If you cure any non-infectious disease, any
mental disorder, any chronic disease, the bureaucracy calls it
remission.
The bureaucracy is
not interested in cures, not interested in
proving nor disproving them.
Diseases Cured by Health
If you have a disease
that is generally, or naturally cured by health, the
bureaucratic medical practitioners claim,
"there is no cure
for the common cold" (measles, influenza, mumps, etc.).
Why? Because in
bureaucratic medical theory, if it is not cured by a medicine,
then "there is no cure for…"
Placebo Effect
When the medical
bureaucracy encounters something they cannot explain, something
they don't want to explain, they invoke the "placebo effect"
clause.
It's a magical
incantation, roughly equivalent to,
"nothing to be
seen here, look away".
What is a placebo
effect?
You can look it up in
Webster's:
"improvement in
the condition of a patient that occurs in response to
treatment but cannot be considered due to the specific
treatment used".
It's bureaucratic
nonsense:
"an improvement"
"in response to a
treatment"
"not caused by
the treatment"...
It's a paradox...
But the true
definition of a placebo effect, although a bit longer, is
not a paradox:
-
an
improvement in the condition of the patient (observed by
the medical bureaucracy)
-
following
(but not necessarily in response to) a treatment
(administered or observed by the medical bureaucracy
-
which cannot
be understood (or it would be a real effect)
-
which cannot
be considered to be due to the treatment (in the opinion
of the medical bureaucracy)
There is no paradox
in the placebo effect discussions, just negligence.
Every improvement in
the condition of the patient has a cause.
When the medical
bureaucracy invokes "placebo effect" they are clearly saying
that it is,
"not worth
investigating, not worthwhile to attempt to understand the
real cause, because the real cause is not approved by the
medical bureaucracy".
Remission
When a cure cannot be
proven, the medical bureaucracy calls it remission.
What's the difference
between remission and cure? A cure is present when the cause has
been addressed - unless you are a medical bureaucrat.
Anyone can claim remission when signs and symptoms abate.
No one cares if you
call it remission - even if it's a cure, no harm done. Cures
(except for infectious diseases) are impossible to diagnose, so
every cure of a non-infectious disease is called a remission by
the medical bureaucracy.
Whether it seems the
remission was brought about by a bureaucratic medical treatment,
an alternative treatment, or even a placebo, it makes no
difference.
If the medical
bureaucracy does not know what caused the remission, it becomes
a,
"spontaneous
remission".
Of course, every
illness, every disease, every improvement, and every cure has a
cause. When we study and find the cause, spontaneous remissions
do not exist.
The term
spontaneous remission is like placebo effect, translation:
"nothing to see
here".
Cures Defy the
Bureaucracy
The bureaucracy runs on statistics.
Every medicine approved
by the bureaucracy is approved based on the statistical results of a
clinical study.
But every cure is a single case, not a group of statistics. Every
cure is an anecdote.
Cures defy the
bureaucracy. Cures terrify the bureaucracy...
How might we find our way
out of the current bureaucratic medical paradigm?
I believe the only way is
to study cures, curing, and cured. The medical bureaucracies have
made cures disappear. Many cures are lost.
We used to be able to
cure depression. But today, depression is incurable.
We used to know how to
cure scurvy, but the top three medical reference texts,
Merck, Lange's, and
Harrison's,
...recommend
treatments for scurvy - avoiding the word cure.
Every one adult has had a
cold, and cured it, but the medical bureaucracy advises,
"there is no cure for
the common cold".
Warts used to be cured,
or not, but today - cured is not defined for warts.
Can
cancer be cured? The
Radical Remission Project tracks patients who have cured their
cancers, but they are ignored by the medical bureaucracy.
If cancers are cured,
when cancers are cured, the cures are lost.
Perfect Cures?
According to the medical bureaucracy, a cure must be perfect, as
pure as the driven snow, absolutely permanent, zipless.
Of course, no cure is
perfect. Pretending, or believing that to be a cure it must be
perfect, is a refusal to notice any cure, a refusal to study cures,
resulting in a failure to cure.
The Medical Bureaucracy
in action...
| 
