When Militarism 'Invades' Medicine...Doctatorship Happens
The Huffingtonpost gave me a big headline with my newest article...a
revision from the previous version of this article...
I hope that people will consider commenting at the website. At the
comments section, there are the typical attacks against homeopathy, even
though THIS article is not a homeopathic article (yeah...crazies are out
When Militarism 'Invades' Medicine...Doctatorship Happens
This article describes how much military thinking and language dominates
our thinking (and practice) in medicine and healing. While many people may
be familiar with some of the metaphors that I've used, I have extended this
metaphor further than I have seen it...and I too was surprised and amazed at
how much it all fit (sad, but true)...
Dana Ullman, MPH
Homeopathic Educational Services
2124 Kittredge St.
Berkeley, CA. 94704
(800)359-9051 (orders only in the U.S.)
dullman (AT) igc (DOT) org OR dana (AT) homeopathic (DOT) com
I've been very surprised that nobody has responded, for this is one of our strongest and most important arguments against the insanities of allopathic medicine. Why do they think like military Minds? Because the sciences developed out of a patriarchal attitude and Apollonian worldview, and they haven't advanced to sciento-philosophic balance since the Italian Renaissance. I therefore quote a favorite book on this most important of all subjects:
The patriarchal attitude leads a society to pursue high spiritual and intellectual goals; however, patriarchal societies, like the ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish, perceived a separation between God and the world and between spirit and flesh. Western Civilization derives its philosophy of life primarily from those three cultures; and so Western man conceives of himself as divided within himself – separated from God and in contention with Nature which [that] threatens to overwhelm him. He places high value on his Mind and spirit as being sacred, whereas his bodily needs are regarded as base and dangerous. He molds his environment and exploits it for his own purposes. He’s “realistic,” intellectual, finds dignity in work, bases his self-worth on wealth and the power it gives him, and hedges his life about with laws and boundaries to keep order. He glorifies a strong, disciplined character by which he can subdue his emotions and hold to his ambitious drives. His culture is practical, rational, war-like, aggressive [i.e., competitive rather than cooperative] [UCD] and authoritarian. He has a hard time just being and enjoying.
On the other hand, matriarchal societies, which are earth centered, regard the human Mind and body as a unity and see God in every aspect of Creation. A man living in such a culture regards the universe as a continuum of intelligent orderliness, and he feels himself to be a drop in the cosmic ocean of life. He believes he should enjoy the caprices of life; and for him, dignity resides in mysticism, fantasy, play, and love. He allows his emotions and instincts to guide him, and he avoids “egocentric,” purposeful behavior toward others. He believes that to allow his head to dictate to his body is insane. The virtues of trust, nurturance, and surrender are highly valued by him. There is a natural democratic sharing of decision-making in his society [i.e., he and his society are egalitarian], and everyone tends to flow with the stream of events of Mother Nature and human nature. He can enjoy pleasure without having feelings of anxiety. Unfortunately, matriarchal societies are not inclined to strive toward civilization-building and Egoic aspirations. . . .
Several centuries ago, Europeans were agrarian people who worked close to the land and sere in tune with he pulses of Nature. The people turned from that maternal, life-giving emphasis of Nature-consciousness to materialism and ownership. This was brought about by the rise of the merchant middle class and Protestantism which [that] gave impetus to the industrial revolution. The new emphasis on status promoted acquisition and, hence, separateness and covetousness. Then masculine militarism and he patriarchal traditions of the ruling class came to he fore to organize the energy of the general populace into nationalism. The patriarchal and matriarchal view of the world have come to be extremes of what should be a balanced whole that incorporates the best aspects of these two world views [worldviews]. . . . The advantages of technology and practicality must be blended with care for Nature and the elimination of antisocial aggressiveness [emphasis mine].
BacZilla, Medicine's Terrorist
BacZilla, Medicine’s Terrorist
They hold to the unreliable proposition that microscopic entities called bacilli, bacteria, vira and microbes have sufficient power to make us sick. They even go so far as to declare these creatures can kill you, regardless their infinitesimal size and that therefore they are exceedingly dangerous and must be killed themselves.
Iatrogenesis or environmental impact, except in occupational hazards with the latter, are generally ignored and they never listen to the patient. Side effects are also iatrogenic or caused by the medicine. If the patient complains about side effects, his complaint is ignored unless the effects are visible to the doctor.
The patient is told that such reactions occur seldom and he must not worry; it is simply ‘the body adjusting to the treatment.’ When the side effects are severe, they hook the patient up to machinery in ‘intensive care’, leave him further to his own devices, go about their business and hope for the best. If he succumbs, it is simply written off as ‘collateral damage’ or they blame the disease, whichever is more convenient to the situation.
They rather stare themselves blind on numbers from machine readings and numbers of creatures in slick microscopic slides, in which they have caught the vira and microbes, bacteria and bacilli or other germs, associated with disease. These numbers may satisfy the bookkeeper’s mentality, but they do not numb the discerning intellect into blind acceptance or uncritical, slavish following.
Resembling the situation in the last couple of wars the US has been engaged in, we could call this medical war on the germs the Vietnam or the Iraq War of Medicine. Since the Iraq War is factual, real and since the situations resemble each other so well, we have chosen this War as our metaphor.
They consider BacZilla one of the main terrorists of medicine and have a host of these creatures ready to scare us with. They credit them with unbelievable powers over life and death and declare that all must be eliminated from every surface – hence the cleaning agents that sell best are those that advertise ‘it kills 99% of all germs and bacteria!’
So great is their fear that laboratories where these things are bred for commercial purposes such as vaccine making have more stringent security measures than a high-security prison and as much as or more than the headquarters of the CIA in Langley or the Pentagon and the White House. In fact, their fear is entirely unhealthy and unwarranted, but that has not yet penetrated their understanding.
They credit BacZilla and his ilk with incredible adaptive powers – which they do have, to our luck – and to elude every attempt to conquer and kill them. The germs learn as much from the ‘medical occupation’ as they possibly can and every new weapon thrown at them will shortly be rendered obsolete and useless. We shall later learn how they adapt to the tactics employed and how they learn to evade, occupy or otherwise render enemy troops bogged down and occupied with tasks other than holding the country – defending themselves against a heavy counter-insurgency.
BacZilla, al-Bacterium, bin-Microbe and al-Virus form the vanguard of the different resistance groups, while Hiv is the elusive Osama bin-Laden of medicine. Like these elusive characters, they are very hard to spot, let alone to catch and conquer, for it seems that for everyone killed ten others come to the funeral and continue the insurgency. When you then bomb the funerals the insurgency goes everywhere; without any funerals, metaphorically speaking.
Inserting troops in the area may get a civil war going – often the al-bin-Fungus-Candida tribe wants to take over and you have to bring in new troops to take care of that problem. Only in case al-Virus is involved do you get other problems than the al-bin-Fungus-Candida crowd, but these problems are equally often insurmountable. They involve the more dangerous tribes from the Mountains of the Pancreas and Liver regions and the Mesopotamia of the rivers of Blood, which quickly wreck the entire economy first and ruin the country as the cherry on the cake. This medley of creatures is the supposedly extremely dangerous crowd, which medicine imagines they have to face in most cases of disease.
Let me quote to you James Tyler Kent, a nineteenth century homoeopath, who pointed out what was wrong in his time and which is still the same today. Trained as an orthodox doctor, he entered the Ecclesiastical School of Medicine as a teacher and later became a homoeopath when his wife was miraculously cured of a long-standing sickness that had resisted all other treatment.
'Anything that looks away from exactitude is unscientific. The physician must be classical; everything must be methodical. Science ceases to be scientific, when disorderly application of the law is made,’
(Kent J.T. Lectures on the Philosophy)
Operation “Enduring Ignorance”
The medical world has imagined its own al-Qaeda – the invisible army of viruses, bacilli, bacteria and microbes and other germs. With exactly the same attributes: unknown, except for the ‘leaders’; being everywhere and nowhere. And like their terrorist counterpart, seemingly invincible. We have encountered some of their different tribes in the last few pages.
Above we also already referred to the ‘insurgent’ nature of Aids and the results of its ability to escape seemingly unscathed, whatever we throw at it. Whole armies of antibiotic ‘grunts’ are slaughtered, all ‘three-letter agencies’ like AZT, are unsuccessful in subduing the ‘insurgency’; regardless the heavy and continuous bombardment with drugs or even ‘ethnic cleansing’ via blood transfusions – city after city comes under control of the ‘insurgency’. Persisting it this faulty notion is what we call Operation “Enduring Ignorance”.
Here is another quote, by the same Dr Kent. He explains clearly what all these germs truly are. Such insights are generally ignored. When ignored, the ignorer is ignorant. Kent was a contemporary of Pasteur and one of the few who saw through the scam. He refused to be counted among the ignorant and his first dictum was that ‘everything must be scientific’. Here is what he had to say about Pasteur’s ideas and its followers:
'Most doctors have gone crazy over the ‘vicious microbe’ as being the cause of disease and think the little fellows exceedingly dangerous. As a matter of fact, the microbes are scavengers. I wonder if scientists reflect when they make statements about bacteria. Naturally they would say that the more bacteria the more danger, but this is not so. It is well known that shortly after death a prick from the scalpel is a serious matter. This is due to the ptomaines (sewer gasses) of the corpse; but when the cadaver has become green and filled with bacteria, it is comparatively harmless. The microbe is not the cause of disease. We should not be carried away by these idle allopathic dreams and vain imaginations, but should correct the vital force. The bacterium is an innocent fellow and if he carries disease, he carries the simple substance, which causes disease, just as an elephant would.'
(Kent J.T. The Lesser Writings)
Should we now all go out and shoot all the elephants?
The simple substance is of course consciousness, for it is in our consciousness that we carry diseased states.
Disease is a dynamic, conscious process and has therefore conscious dynamic causes that have their foundation in the self. We cannot expect to remain healthy when our mode of living is exploitative of both resources and people. It makes us moreover unhappy. This explains also why, when a 'viral, microbial, bacterial or bacillus disease’ is around, not everyone will get the disease. Two people working next to each other will not be both sick, when the one is a happy person. His colleague will not be able to infect him. Why else does not everyone get sick during the flue season? Some people have better immunity, which protects them better, they will say.
Happiness and contentment – being dynamic in their nature – form the best immunity. Each person who gets the flue or another disease has a mental or emotional problem, is discontent or is unhappy or makes himself so. These are also dynamic processes of course.
If you go from home without sufficient clothes, you do have a mental problem, for then you are a fool. The result is that promptly you will catch a cold. A happy man is smart enough to bring a jacket on a warm day, followed by a cold night. Only those that refuse to use their brains and do not think ahead catch colds. As soon as the temperature drops, they become cold and decidedly unhappy. Unhappy people get sick – there are no bones about it. The dynamics of feeling unpleasantly cold are such that one gets sick.
The dynamics of the healthy differ from that of the sick and these dynamics are the clues to disease and must therefore be studied. All examples here show dynamic, rather than physical causes. For one person stands up better to poisoning than another, simply because of the dynamics of his mental state and the consequent reactions of his body. They mirror each other perfectly.
Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.
War on Disease
Medicine’s al-Qaeda is exactly like its counterpart – it learns from the tactics, as we already explained. Being part of the defence system, it cannot act otherwise, although it first has to accept the occupation. The resistance then developing is not only natural, but necessary for survival. As in Iraq, the greater the suppression and oppression, the worse the outcome, even if it seems that the insurgency is subdued by a surge. Like in Iraq, they bide their time to renew the insurgency at the first lull in attention, troop withdrawal or other event, such as the arming of one group while not doing the same for another. In our case, al-bin-Fungus-Candida was armed at the expense of other groups and only those affiliated – of the el-Fungi faction – were equally armed.
Even when a strong and large ‘foreign coalition army’ in the form of HAART or triple-therapy is sent in, it is helpless and powerless to save even a part, let alone the entire country, from ruin.
They resemble the Vice-President of the US. For, to enjoy that lifestyle – ‘our way of life is not negotiable’ (Dick Cheney) – they are willing to risk a civil war in the body, with all its devastating results.
This is the realistic and true picture of the war on the medical terrorists and its supposedly ‘only temporary’ outcome as viewed by the orthodox. As in Iraq, the temporary has become the permanent and the outcome is disastrously reminiscent of the medical failure in conquering disease.
Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.
Antibiotics - The Surge.
‘Does this mean that antibiotics are immune-suppressant drugs? This is an explosive question. Drugs generally classified as suppressants-suppressants are very dangerous. They are used only on people with cancer, and also after organ-transplants. They greatly increase the risk of serious bacterial and viral infection, and also of cancer, and are used only when patients are otherwise likely to die.’
* We see that there is an apparent need to defend the use of antibiotics. Notwithstanding the subsequent demolition, it has been weakened by the above admission. How else are they going to treat sexually transmittable diseases? They have nothing else. Moreover the description of immune-suppressant drugs is too general and told as if only belonging to the anti-cancer drugs. AZT is such a drug, so why the hesitation? Antibiotics are in the same class, so why the hesitation?
‘In ordinary circumstances, antibiotics are nothing like as dangerous as these drugs. As already stated, one course of antibiotics destroys the bacteria in the gut but not utterly, and a healthy balance of resident bacteria is usually restored soon after antibiotic therapy.
‘The only class of antibiotic that is commonly identified as suppressive is tetracycline, because of its profound destruction of so many species of resident gut flora. And in a sense allergic reactions are reassuring because as mentioned, they show that the body's inner immune defences are being irritated and therefore obviously in working order. Basically healthy people are very unlikely to disrupt their inner immune defences by taking just one course of antibiotics.’
* Healthy people also die of anaphylactic shock, if they are sensitive. Truly healthy people also have no need of antibiotics, so how does that correlate with their immune response? This inaccurate sort of description must be avoided, when confronted with Aids.
‘Nevertheless, antibiotics do have a suppressive effect on our defences against infection. Given that our outer defences, including resident bacteria and the mucosal lining of the body's inner passages, are an integral part of our immune system, it follows inescapably that all antibiotics are by their nature immunosuppressant – mildly so, no doubt, compared with the drugs used on cancer and organ transplant patients, but immunosuppressive nonetheless.
‘How much this matters depends on the general state of the health of the individual, the type of antibiotic and the strength and length of the course. As ever, babies and little children, old people, hospital patients and anybody else who is generally weak or ill are at greatest risk and this includes many, if not most people on the antibiotic treadmill, taking more and more courses for recurrent infections.
‘Most vulnerable of all are people who are already immune-suppressed. But which came first; immune-suppression or antibiotics?
‘Here is the view of Professor Sandy Raeburn, head of the department of clinical genetics at Nottingham University, a specialist in disease of young children. In 1972 he wrote a paper for the Lancet, on "Antibiotics and Immunodeficiency":
"Immunological-deficiency syndromes were not observed before 1952. A possible explanation is that some of these conditions are produced by administration of antibiotics to certain individuals at a critical point in the development of immune responses."
‘Dr Raeburn gave examples of immunodeficiency diseases suffered mostly by babies and young children. Combined immunodeficiency (DIC) lays infants open to diarrhoea, thrush, pneumonia and other infections, and may increase the chance of cancer. Chronic granulomatous disease (CGD) also makes babies more vulnerable to bacterial infections.’
From the table above – which is far from complete with a total of over 400 known bacteria and other germs living in the gut – we see that even the so-called dangerous bacteria, like streptococcus and enterococcus live already at a population density from 10,000 to a billion in our throat, stomach and gut respectively. Enterococcus tops a massive 100billion, just like other bacteria such as staphylococcus, which are supposed to be dangerous. If this were so, then why do they belong to the largest population groups in the digestive system? Moreover, why are we not constantly sick at such densities?
It is simply because they already are very important for digestion and when we eat something spoilt, they merely increase their number to correct our foolish dietary indiscretions. Promptly, the doctors blame the bacilli and bacteria for the indiscretion, so absolving man from his responsibilities and making him a willing victim.
A Decent Burial
Let us look at the virus or germ theory a little closer. It is but an assumption that germs cause disease. They say their evidence is presented in the fact that when they kill the bacteria or vira, the disease is soon gone as well. The vira become active from some outside trigger – generally an invasion by and of those same germs. They attack the living cells and destroy them, in the process using the cell-DNA to multiply. A virus is really nothing more than a string of mRNA cells, which need another cell’s DNA to complete them and divide. If this is allowed to continue unabated, the body will succumb under the onslaught and the victim will die.
That sounds like the correct view, is it not? After all, Pasteur already proved this more than 150 years ago, is the argument.
Pasteur put medicine on the wrong foot and it has not made a single step forward since.
His Quasimodo of a theory is now about to meet its maker, since we will sufficiently show that it better join Pasteur in his grave. They then can both start turning, as we expose both their flaws – Pasteur in his faulty reasoning and his theory in its consequent Quasimodo Gestalt.
Pasteur made a few assumptions, which we shall scrutinise further, to discover whether they stroke with the facts or not. The first is the assumption that germs cause disease.
When a disease is full-blown, what is the picture of the blood and/or the tissues?
A so-called ‘viral or bacterial disease’ is characterised by a high level of vira or other germs in the blood and tissues of victims of full-blown cases, known as the viral or bacterial load. This is – and we should note this well – invariably the case with all viral or other diseases supposedly caused by a bacterium, a bacillus or a microbe. Invariably this is noted in full-blown cases. Before the case is full-blown we see but an amount corresponding to the severity of the progression. As we noted before about some wisdom we would not defile, if more germs can be seen, more germs will be seen.
If we examine the blood of any healthy person, we may find the virus or germ in some cases, but never in disproportionate amounts. In the sick, everyone has a very high count. When normally it may be one per million, in disease it is one or two per three cells. This is the picture and this is the reality of the facts with all diseases that have an associated germ, of whichever class.
Therefore, we discover that the disease is nothing more nor less than an ultimate result. We go to visit the doctor when we feel sick and not at any other time. We do not go there for a social chat, but to complain about something that bothers us, gives us pain or is otherwise uncomfortable. There is no other reason why would go there. In fact, we try to avoid going there at all costs and postpone the visit till it is inevitable – the result has become too apparent and causes too much distress.
Doctors are not on our wish lists of frequent visits or visitors. We do not like them very much, for the things they have to say to us are those things we do not even want at all, let alone hear about them. Therefore, we stay away from them as much as possible. Vira and germs are not on our wish lists either and we want to avoid them also as much as we can. We do not seem to realise their importance, other than as the supposed destroyers of our health.
Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.
Disease as a Process
Disease as a Process
The disease is but a process of elimination, which in itself is a healthy occurrence. It occurs because we have a wrong attitude and mentality, suffer from grief, anger, worry or fear and this reflects on the body, which becomes sick as a consequence. Hence it is a dynamic process, dependent on the development from subtle to gross. It is dependent on the reflection of the mental state in the physical appearance and its functions and structure. Both mentally and physically, these things must be eliminated to become healthy. Unless the physical elimination process goes faster than the replenishment, there is little to worry about. Only when the elimination has gone beyond the critical balance that maintains life can we consider the disease to carry real danger and the degree and speed with which the process diminishes the life force determines the severity of the disease.
The germ is the agent of elimination and in disease there is a need of great quantities of them. Hence the appearance of ever more germs of the appropriate kind as the disease progresses and more disease-products have to be eliminated, is nothing to be afraid of – on the contrary; it has to be lauded. This explains perfectly why there are more germs as the disease progresses towards the ultimate state, which is when it begins to bother us too much and we finally go see a doctor. When we see the doctor, we arrive with a disease ultimate – the final product, from which we seek relief.
The disease-product of elimination is slime, pus, serum, growths or other waste products as generated for instance in diarrhoea or catarrh and cancer. A by-product of elimination may carry toxins, which are the substances that can make us feel sicker and may be dangerous to life, such as in cholera and Ebola or the parasites in malaria and yellow fever.
All these components of the disease-process take place simultaneously and are interdependent. None of them are in any way to be considered causes or even maintainers of disease, but simply results of the disease process of elimination. In an epidemic, only those people with a similar mental state will develop the disease. Therefore, an epidemic will never hit more than 8 to 15% of the population, because at any one time, this is a percentage that has a similar mental state.
They form the totality of symptoms as experienced by the patient, but not necessarily in the exact above terms. His experience is different only in terminology and expression and that only to a limited degree too. He also experiences the mental and emotional state, the pus, slime, serum or diarrhoea, but gives the doctor further details about these that are not covered by the above general descriptions. These personal descriptions represent the individual aspect of the experience as opposed to the general ones. Each of the above processes are experienced somehow by the patient but in a unique manner, exclusive to that patient only. The pattern is similar but never identical, because it is ruled by individuality. Pattern recognition is therefore the grand secret and skill of the physician, for it enables him to quickly diagnose and prescribe. He learns it by repetition and study of his own patient records, looking for similarities in behaviour, habits, tastes and manners.
Soon he will discover that those similar patterns belong to people with similar problems and thus similar remedies. He will discover that the law of similars can teach him a great deal about how people form groups – birds of a feather flock together. He will discover that politicians in Parliament for instance are comparable to a ‘Lycopodium convention’. Lycopodium here being a remedy with characteristics of bullying, bluffing and evading blame and responsibility; full of intestinal gas, on the heat of which they try to elevate themselves above the common people – the perfect picture of politicians.
He discovers that diseases form fixed patterns along fixed lines of development and symptoms. He finds that they are not conjectural general syndromes with fancy names, but personal, often painful experiences of suffering people.
Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.
In the Q & A forum of an old issue (probably from the late 1960s or early ‘70s) of either THE LEMURIA BUILDER or the STELLE LETTER, the author of that book [Footnote: He was probably the only person to have studied under all seven Scribes of the seven mystery schools – mystery meaning “profound truth” – of the seven lesser Brotherhoods. Beginning with the oldest of those 21,000 years ago on Atlantean soil (now Antarctica), all of those were formed by Christ, our solar system’s Regent ArchAngel whose real name is Melki-Zadek or Melchizedek when with the guttural Hebraic inflections. In the third time He walked the Earth as a man, He took the relinquished brain and body of the High Adept come Master named Jesus at the Baptism and gave them up on the Cross.] cryptically said, “The ULTIMATE FRONTIER was written to appeal to the few and turn away all others. What does that mean?
Many years later, when I asked him in person, he in turn asked me, “Who are the few?” I answered, “I’ve always thought it meant class-A thinkers [Footnote: Those are people with clear and independent thought either wholly or mostly devoid of conditioned-reflex brain reactions to half-truths and lies. They have comprised less than 1% of incarnant humanity since Mu went down 26,000 years ago and took with it Mukulian/Lemurian Civilization, which lasted 52,000 years and was the source of most of the over 100 million Masters (i.e., perfected human beings ready to advance to Angelic existence, who’ve advanced through all 12 degrees of Sainthood) and over one billion Saints (i.e., First through Eleventh Degree) in our 13-billion-member Human Life Wave.] but especially proto-Initiates [proto-Saints].” He nodded with a smile and replied, “Well said, Albert.”
He then asked me, “Who are the others?” I again answered unsure, “I’d guess class-B and class-C thinkers [respectively, the masses, constituting 90% of incarnant humanity for the last 26 Dark Millennia, and their equally misguided leaders, constituting 9%] but certainly the insincere and merely curious.” He again nodded but with a bigger smile.
He finally asked me, “So, what do you [emphasis] think it means?” I immediately said, “Sir, if you’ll permit me [to say] what will be insulting if I’m wrong, the book contains five or six wholly ridiculous remarks [that are] totally out of character with the rest of it, and my experience is that most people ignore the rest of it and somehow discard the book.” I uncontrollably dropped my head in disbelief and barely fought off tears. When I soon looked up, he had an even bigger smile, again nodding, and he then firmly grasped my right shoulder with his left hand and firmly shook my hand. We were friends for the rest of his life, and I still grieve the loss of a surely obvious Saint.
The book does exactly what I said it does, and it’s still my favorite read out of hundreds of thousands of books and articles worth reading after 38 years as a scholar. Once cure is assuredly underway, all of my patients get that book. End of story.
That is hilarious and excellent! I'm still chuckling. I'd pick away at it a bit to correct some things I find in error, but they're so few and the rest is so excellent that it can wait quite a long time. My hero! Well done, pal. It's hilarious!
I find I have a few more thoughts along this line. Bear with me. It gets good even if what I initially say bothers you or sounds like a broken record. I emphasize, though, that I repeat things because most readers of online forums never bother to read previous postings as well as because Amos Comenius, the Father of Education, emphasized the axiom "Repeat, repeat, repeat!" I never understand that when endlessly asked questions I’ve already answered or explained or those easily answered by simply reading Samuel Hahnemann’s brilliant and highly futuristic writings, but I somehow seem to manage wiggling through them without making significant mistakes and hope this one also qualifies. Ready, set, go.
Allopathic thinking is and has been adopted by almost all people on the planet for as far back as ignorant academics can trace civilization. Typical of such sophistic morons, that's only 6.2% of the true history of civilization on Earth, but it’s not surprisingly the worst part of it. Unfortunately, allopathic thinking is so incredibly moronic and insane (i.e., "delusional") that it's unfathomable to homeopaths and horrendously scary to us that everyone adopts such nonsense as though it's some God-damned religion. Easy evidence commeth: "I have to do what my doctor says." God help us!
None of it makes any sense when really examined, and certainly nothing allopaths and advocates of allopathic medicine say about chronic diseases and psychiatric maladies is at all correct. In fact, they don't have a single one of their manifold basic assumptions or definitions correct, period! What happens when you foul up your basic premises and definitions? Presto chango, absolutely all of your conclusions will be wrong, and that includes what you do with them.
No surprise commeth: Allopaths can't cure anything but bacterial infections, and even those little beasties adapt and become antibiotic-resistant bacterium. (Incidentally, I take special pride in saying that homeopaths don't suffer the consequences of such idiocy and never have.) That leaves 99.99% of all the deadly diseases in industrialized societies allopaths can't cure. If you connect the dots, you again come full circle to the above conclusion: All of their assumptions are wrong. What is so difficult about that equation and logic? Every child can understand it! Conclusion commeth: Everyone is hopelessly brainwashed.
Uh oh, you don't want to say that to dangerously ignorant morons, especially when they number 6.8 billion people who breed like flies. They'll take it offensively even though it's said to help them free themselves (something only they can do) from such deadly dangerous enslavement to seemingly endless half-truths and lies. They'll go, "No, I'm not!" Their fists are clinched when they say that, too, and the more dangerous ones have a club or other weapon in their hands and usually with their oh-holy book or national charter in the other. What a surprise (he said facetiously) that left-brain dominant people defend their insanities by killing messengers of Truth. I then typically go: "Wanna bet? I can prove it in a second." I endlessly prove it, and yet they all still maintain their totally indefensible and tremendously dangerous views on medicine and whatnot that were adopted by perfected brainwashing from birth to the grave. Homeopathy can mightily assist in freeing people from indoctrination to falsehoods by providing them mental freedom, but people today can't even conceive of that. What's wrong with this picture?
Allopathic medicine is unquestionably the major culprit in absolutely all of the horrors of our world because its falsehoods underlie absolutely all of the conclusions and decisions people make out of abject ignorance of homeopathy, the actual Science of Medicine due to the 10 natural Laws of Medicine. We have sick people in charge of all power structures and sick people everywhere else there's air, so who else is to blame for this but those who admit they can't cure? Why do we vote for morons and tyrants, anyway? In general, why is their crime, corruption, tyranny and social injustice everywhere we look? Why do most people either fail to notice them or complacently accept them? These kinds of questions are endless because the sources of them endlessly manufacture half-truths and lies designed to mislead the mindless followers constituting the masses (90% of incarnant humanity) and their leaders. None of it makes sense, though.
Why have doctors without cures? What is so damn difficult about that question? They admit they can't cure 99.99% of deadly illnesses in industrialized societies and the three other travesties of justice I named above, so why accept such self-admitted quacks who're the creators of most of the diseases they can't cure and who further admit they kill almost all of their patients? People have blank stares when we ask them that question and generally refute those indisputable facts constantly admitted to by allopathic authorities. How does that work? Lifelong brainwashing, Jethro, and it doesn't help that most people are also ridiculously ignorant, servile, complacent, selfish and brain damaged (due to premature cutting of their umbilical cords by God-damned allopaths).
How do you fix that? God apparently always answers: "By a Great Plague, you fools! How else can it be fixed?" That was the seeming reason for the God-damned Asiatic cholera of 1828-33, for it naturally brought homeopathy to the consciousness of Hippocrates' "ordinary folk" and thus created the meteoric rise of homeopathy in 19th-century America and Europe because we alone cured it and every other disease patients thereafter came to us with. Ignorant skeptics of these facts need to see William Harvey King’s HISTORY OF HOMŒOPATHY AND ITS INSTITUTIONS IN AMERICA (long subtitle -- link: HISTORY OF HOMOEOPATHY AND ITS INSTITUTIONS IN AMERICA By William Harvey King, M. D., LL. D. Presented by Sylvain Cazalet) and Vol. III of Harris Coulter’s DIVIDED LEGACY: A HISTORY OF THE SCHISM IN MEDICAL THOUGHT (another long subtitle).
It’s still the same ridiculously tragic situation with tremendously virulent infectious diseases, too: They can’t cure them, but we can. A Great Plague is therefore coming. Of course, they’re inevitable in perennial terms every few hundred years, but this philosophical issue perhaps explains when they come and why. Allopaths only concern themselves with how they arise, and it’s always attributed to little beasties rather than what allopaths have done to the otherwise perfect human immune systems of everyone on the planet by their pernicious therapies through generations of servile victims of that God-damned blood cult of inadvertent mass murder by physicians.
It’s never any coincidence that wonderful things happen after Great Plagues when homeopaths have been around and with the means to disseminate instructions to the populations about how to cure them. We did it through full-page statements in newspapers at our own expenses throughout the 19th century in each and every epidemic, all of which raged except in our hands, but Hahnemannians weren’t around during the so-called “Spanish” flu pandemic of 1918; i.e., it wasn’t from Spain and wasn’t a Great Plague, for allopaths created it with their God-damned vaccines. Therefore, nobody remembered the lessons of the past and therefore suffered in allopathic hands throughout 1918 around the world.
They’re now again destined to repeat those mistakes of listening to doctors without cures when the next Great Plague comes and again threatens to wipe out half of the populations of all cities and one third of those in rural areas. The Internet will, however, probably prevent such devastation as has been the norm, and history will again repeat itself by bringing us once again to the top of medical circles because we belong there when the facts are known. Isn't that sad but interesting and strangely heartwarming that a Great Plague will usher in the Final Philosophy of mankind?
When will that happen? The most recent date in the Great Pyramid’s hyper-accurate prophecies was 2001¾. That clearly referred to the so-called “Events of 9/11.” The next date in those prophecies, which have been accurate for 6700 years, is 2045¾. What do you want to bet that’s what it marks? Of course, “the Final Philosophy” (Galileo) will not be the one to usher in the Kingdom of God on Earth, for that will require further mass adjustment to the Perfect Philosophy, but it will resolve all of our current dilemmas in the sciences, humanities and religions and thus throughout our societies. What do you want to bet? I’ll bet a dollar because that structure is on the back of it, and I never bet that unless I’m sure.
There are lots of strange questions when you examine allopathic medicine with knowledge of homeopathy, and the issue of a military mindset naturally opens up a great many of them to critical examination. I like this one because it’s so Socratic: Why do the proponents of allopathic medicine bother to defend it when it has no defenses? Wealth, prestige and abuses of power are always involved in such evil machinations. After all (ready, set, go):
1. They're self-admitted quacks because the word literally means "therapeutic incompetent," and that's what they constantly tell us they are when you read their textbooks and medical journals and see “incurable” after absolutely every disease except bacterial infections;
2. They're the creators of most of the diseases they can't cure and now also readily admit that (boy, were we surprised by that one);
3. They're responsible for iatromega-genocide amounting to fully 71% of hospital deaths by euthanasia but actually numbering 97-98% of such deaths because fully 26% of allopathic deaths end up in civil court in wrongful death suits; and
4. They also unwittingly accept blame for all of the horrors of industrial chemistry because the absolutely insane allopathic notion of so-called "safe levels of poisons" underlies all of industrial chemistry, which of course is now threatening all life on Earth in an imminent future unless we stop these hundreds of millions of monsters from Hell.
They defend it because they think they're right. This is called misguided sincerity, and it's the source of most of the wrongheaded errors that have ever befallen the human race. How can they possibly think they're right, though, given those four constantly admitted facts from the highest allopathic authorities? Hell of a good question, isn't it? Volumes have written about this since the rediscovery of the sciences and humanities during the Italian Renaissance, and I've certainly contributed my two bits in previous postings, but I'll again take a stab at being succinct about it given the foregoing postings in this thread.
Scientists today rely upon and have for centuries past relied upon what they know via empirical facts and almost invariably ignore the obvious and thus refute logical arguments no matter how sound. Here's my favorite example. This is the first question of the physician: A man dies and something's gone; where was it? If you can't answer that question, you're in big trouble and headed for a ghastly agonal, horrendously horrible and premature iatrogenic death in allopathic hands while all of the way toward that destiny creating negative karma (Sanskrit for "carryover" effects), or sins.
Why does that happen? Because people today obviously know nothing about right and wrong, Truth and falsehood or good and bad, and each generation descends in a downward spiral of compromising Truth underlain by frightening servility simply because they can’t think clearly and for themselves. Why is that so difficult, though? There’s nothing special about me or any other Hahnemannian other than our unquenchable love of Truth. My parents were certainly wonderful, but they didn’t make me a Saint, because they didn’t know any of the truths of existence or how to develop the brains of children and certainly didn’t know much about academic subjects even though they both wonderfully knew how to love. I don’t know the answer to that profound question even though I’ve thought about it a lot, but the fact remains that there’s nothing special about me or any Hahnemannians I know, so why is it so difficult for other people to think clearly and for themselves? Hahnemann’s father meticulously instilled that way of thinking into young Samuel as a boy by giving him really tough questions to answer by the evening meal, and he thoroughly inculcated into him the ancient axiom to hold to what proves good and true. My parents certainly did that but only in a roundabout way by example. It was apparently sufficient and verifies my choice of them as parents, but I’ve seen their like rather often and even more so in recent years. Despite constantly depressing visible evidence to the contrary among the masses, that latter observation would seem to portend well as we move further into the 21st century, just as we might expect of the future humanity well deserves.
In every instance of scientific advancement of any significance, somebody simply noticed something wrong in some basic assumption. School scientists are apparently incapable of that and always have been because they're all just class-B thinkers (9% of incarnant humanity for the last 26,000 years). They readily acquiesced to all of the half-truths and lies they were taught and subsequently do so with everything later shown to them simply because they lack the clear and independent thought of class-A thinkers. Incidentally, class-C thinkers are not part of this equation because they're just follower fools who'll clearly believe anything, and the endless mumbo jumbo of religions and pseudo science are sufficient evidence for that.
Most scientists thus never reexamine what they believe (emphasis). They call them facts but can't defend them. They say that this and that endless hokum is science and scientific, but they fail to realize that they skew scientific method with false assumptions they plug into it. They further fail to recognize that there are 10 natural laws specific to medicine even though they're readily proved by anyone, which irrefutably shows everyone that homeopathy is the actual Science of Medicine.
For emphasis, they readily confuse subjects ending in –ology (meaning “study of”) with pure sciences, so they naturally fail to recognize that homeopathy is one of the very few latter. It’s pretty much endless yada yada from these types of personalities, and class-A thinkers are incensed by the dumb-ass mistakes by those academic morons.
They stubbornly hold to their views in the same way every fanatical religionist does against all evidence to the contrary. In fact, they call their belief structure the "consensus of opinion." Okie dokie, it's a belief, right, Jethro? They'll go, "No, it's fact." It is? "Yeah!" What if I shatter it back into oblivion and expose you as a dangerous fool who's unwittingly resonant with Hell? They'll chuckle right on cue. So, I shatter it, and they're shaken. Does it change their views? I mean, I just shattered them. Do they reform their views? Dream on, Jethro. They're not capable of it.
It takes an uncommon intellect to adjust to the Truth when exposed to depths of it that totally shatter everything one believes with all of their heart, Mind and Soul. School scientists simply aren't capable of doing that. They rest upon authoritarianism as their make-shift religion and authority figures as their make-shift priesthoods of fools. Despite the easily demonstrated fact that the emperor has no clothes on except among actual scholars (who’re fewer than you probably think there are), these allopathic morons and their equally mindless advocates will endlessly go, "Professor Big Wig of Dumbass University says [so and so], and that's good enough for me and the rest of us." I have a general response to such foolishness: If it permanently removes you and yours from the planet as dangerously ignorant fools, sure thing, Bubba; you can believe anything you want, but hurry along, please, and get that new brain while there’s still time left in the universe.
Yeah, that’s funny, but those morons line up for centuries to replace previous fools in positions of academic and professional authority, so that's no solution. We have to cure them. How do you do that, though? They'll go, "I'm not sick!" You hold insane views and do insanely destructive things, but you're not sick? How does that work? "No, I don't!" Yes, you do, and watch me prove it. I endlessly prove it, but they still don't listen. It's all "teaha tole me" stuff with those morons. That's as good as I can do this time. Fun, huh?
Finally, who is surprised at the condition of the world, of civilization and of humanity when we understand even those few things? Not us.
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|"Doctatorship" -- when medical and military thinking MERGE...||Dana Ullman||Homeopathy List Discussion||3||19th May 2009 10:44 PM|
|The best medicine||Ananda Rucira||Homeopathy List Discussion||6||6th June 2006 07:09 PM|
|Medicine in the Quran||LisaAnnan||Coffee Shop||9||5th June 2004 11:36 AM|
|Can English medicine and Homeo medicine be taken together||sharfudeen||Homeopathy Discussion||15||1st March 2003 03:55 PM|
|The History of Medicine||Ben Rozendal||Homeopathy Discussion||8||17th September 1999 06:31 AM|