If you ask your medical practitioner how any medication works and all the effects (side effects are just a nice way of listing effects medical people don’t like) it has on the human body, I doubt you will get an answer. From personal experience, much of the time it is, let’s “try” this medication, and if you have a “problem” with it, we can try another brand. How often have you been given a drug, and it has failed or worse? Do you think this is evidence-based science? Or are you really a guinea pig gambling?
“Medicine is a great humbug. I know it is called a science. Science, indeed! It is nothing like science. Doctors are mere empirics, when they are not charlatans. We are as ignorant as men can be. Who knows anything in the world about medicine? Gentlemen, you have done me the honor to come here and attend my lectures, and I must tell you frankly now, in the beginning, that I know nothing in the world about medicine, and I don’t know anybody that does know anything about it. I repeat it. Nobody knows anything about medicine. I repeat it to you, there is no such thing as medical science.” — Dr. Francois Magendie, head physician at Hotel Dieu, Paris, France, 1856
[“Paris Correspondence - Rue De La Chausee D’Astin, Paris, Feb. 24, 1856,” New York Medical Gazette and Journal of Health, vol. 7, no. 6, June 1856, p. 347.]
Today's policies and political activity treat people like pawns. More than ever before, attempts will be made to use people like cogs in a wheel. People will be handled like puppets on a string, and everyone will think that this reflects the greatest progress imaginable.
I want to mention a related question: why is it that many PhD people who are not MDs and only know about living people from textbooks, seminars and papers, spend so much time telling MDs what is the origin of disease and how to cure it? This is specially common in cancer and in psychiatry, and more recently in the gut bacteria universe.
PhDs insist on mechanistic assumptions: the brain is a machine, the endocrine system is a machine, the subcellular organelles are machines. Every part should be replaceable, you just need some oil here and there to lubricate these junctions, your gut flora has bad bacteria because they wear off over time as they replicate, and they need to be replaced and maybe there is this magical sauce or this super new magnetic thingy that will recycle the electrons or something, and that's how you heal the microbiome. It's all physics, really!
None of this has anything to do with empiricism. It's all based on axioms.
I've noticed axioms tend to fail miserably when they come into contact with anything alive.
I don't know why MDs listen so much the words of all those weirdos.
Mr. Bystrianyk, do you think this might have something to do with money?
I got into the habit of bolding things that really strike me.
I think that’s very true! Very few work with the mind-body connection. It’s all about the physical chemistry. Test this and that and look for what needs tweaking. That is a flawed model of reality. No wonder many experiments don’t really improve the patient.
Does it have to do with money? Almost certainly, that’s a big part of it. It’s also just belief systems that are passed down from generation to generation. Some notions fade away, and others just become very medically popular, and they stick around. However, the underlying notion of messing with the human body with vaccines, drugs, and procedures is the fundamental foundation of medicine. It’s generally not teaching each person to be responsible for their own health. Where would the profit and fame be in that?
Another peculiarity of 'medical science' with the axioms is studying dead bodies and tissue and applying the 'knowledge' to living beings. Fantasies (theories) about the structure and operation of body cells comes from this ghoulish cult. Maybe the next step is to make computer models of dead bodies, get a consensus and apply that 'knowledge'? The money is the carrot on a stick. (my take on it) See Gilbert Ling and Harold Hillman for exposition on living cell and 'medical science'.
MDs are employees now. They don't get paid to think.
From medical school, you say? So you had direct experience with actually living human beings, instead of just papers and charts and seminars, like happens to others with your same title.
The alignment of incentives seems to be very important. Do you think a doctor would pay for a very expensive set of lab tests from her own pocket if she was convinced the patient needed that to survive?
Magendie got it right. The allopathic pseudo-sciences invent conditions from thin air and then, lo and behold, create treatments for the said inventions. I first woke up the scams when they started talking about a new viral illness called AIDS. It would take some 20 years for the Perth Group to blow the scam apart and show the real causes for the syndrome. As it turned out, it was just bad living excesses, alcohol and drugs, followed up with highly toxic "treatments". Most victims died from the treatments. Yet most of the world still believes it was a "virus"!
Definitely worth reading. There's a section it it that describes the term "side effects" as being basically clever psychological marketing. There are no real side effects of pharmaceuticals, "side effects" are in fact direct effects of the drug being taken.
I'll take a stab at this- I would ask what are we calling "science" that medicine may or may not be based upon?
Years ago, while working in the lab of a world authority on a particular metabolic disease, I spent much time (unsuccessfully) attempting to learn the detailed mechanism of the metabolic pathway that purportedly caused that disease. Eventually, I asked my boss, a world authority, for help. It was an awkward discussion, and receiving no substantive answers, and I walked away thinking that nobody understood the mechanism.
Now, 3 decades later, having run thousands of properly controlled scientific experiments (including drug development for Big Pharma,) I have seen nothing to contradict the thoughts I had following that meeting with my boss.
Yes, we can add various chemical compounds to cells grown in culture (using cell lines most of which are chromosomally abnormal and contain heterogenous non-defined abnormalities,) and measure up or down regulation of some protein of interest. But, those results tell us nothing about the mechanism of the chemical compound's effect nor the effect of that chemical compound on an organism such as a human being. Yet, knowing neither of those critical pieces of information, and based on no additional information, those chemical compounds are prescribed to the public and called pharmaceuticals.
So, it that medicine based on science? Yes, if we use today's definition of science, the extrapolation of in vitro experimental results as being appropriately applicable to the expected effect in an in vivo animal. But, No, if we define science as understanding the mechanism of a particular disease (and that seems to be the story presented to deceive the general public) and somehow curing the disease by correcting a malfunctioning mechanism.
I would make this blanket statement- nobody on earth understands how anything in the living organism functions- it is simply too complex with its hundreds of thousands of interacting molecular reactions occuring at rates which could never be quantified or measured.
Twenty years ago (after my 5 yr stint with Big Pharma,) I divested myself of all Big Pharma stock, because I considered the entire industry to be unethical, corrupt, and dangerous. It has become much worse today.
I disagree. Medicine is completely based on science. The problem is doctors have no critical analysis skills and/or don't read the science. The studies show that eg a treatment has a small statistical effect compared to placebo, or more usually another treatment, but no clinically significant benefit especially when the other non-beneficial effects are factored in. However, the treatment is FDA approved and is being promoted by reps whose steak dinner they've just been to or whose company is funding their research, ward or post.
Medicine is largely nothing to do with science. Science keeps pink and green separated. Medicine like much The Science™️ treats huge swathes of pink as if it were green. In other words its largely brown stuff.
Ask your doctor if permanent disability is right for you.
Today's policies and political activity treat people like pawns. More than ever before, attempts will be made to use people like cogs in a wheel. People will be handled like puppets on a string, and everyone will think that this reflects the greatest progress imaginable.
Rudolph Steiner 1917 ?
Why the different font in the text?
That's unusual.
I want to mention a related question: why is it that many PhD people who are not MDs and only know about living people from textbooks, seminars and papers, spend so much time telling MDs what is the origin of disease and how to cure it? This is specially common in cancer and in psychiatry, and more recently in the gut bacteria universe.
PhDs insist on mechanistic assumptions: the brain is a machine, the endocrine system is a machine, the subcellular organelles are machines. Every part should be replaceable, you just need some oil here and there to lubricate these junctions, your gut flora has bad bacteria because they wear off over time as they replicate, and they need to be replaced and maybe there is this magical sauce or this super new magnetic thingy that will recycle the electrons or something, and that's how you heal the microbiome. It's all physics, really!
None of this has anything to do with empiricism. It's all based on axioms.
I've noticed axioms tend to fail miserably when they come into contact with anything alive.
I don't know why MDs listen so much the words of all those weirdos.
Mr. Bystrianyk, do you think this might have something to do with money?
I got into the habit of bolding things that really strike me.
I think that’s very true! Very few work with the mind-body connection. It’s all about the physical chemistry. Test this and that and look for what needs tweaking. That is a flawed model of reality. No wonder many experiments don’t really improve the patient.
Does it have to do with money? Almost certainly, that’s a big part of it. It’s also just belief systems that are passed down from generation to generation. Some notions fade away, and others just become very medically popular, and they stick around. However, the underlying notion of messing with the human body with vaccines, drugs, and procedures is the fundamental foundation of medicine. It’s generally not teaching each person to be responsible for their own health. Where would the profit and fame be in that?
Thank you!
Another peculiarity of 'medical science' with the axioms is studying dead bodies and tissue and applying the 'knowledge' to living beings. Fantasies (theories) about the structure and operation of body cells comes from this ghoulish cult. Maybe the next step is to make computer models of dead bodies, get a consensus and apply that 'knowledge'? The money is the carrot on a stick. (my take on it) See Gilbert Ling and Harold Hillman for exposition on living cell and 'medical science'.
MDs are employees now. They don't get paid to think.
From medical school, you say? So you had direct experience with actually living human beings, instead of just papers and charts and seminars, like happens to others with your same title.
The alignment of incentives seems to be very important. Do you think a doctor would pay for a very expensive set of lab tests from her own pocket if she was convinced the patient needed that to survive?
Maybe not that, but I saw one pay for moderate priced prescriptions. Some of them are true believers.
Magendie got it right. The allopathic pseudo-sciences invent conditions from thin air and then, lo and behold, create treatments for the said inventions. I first woke up the scams when they started talking about a new viral illness called AIDS. It would take some 20 years for the Perth Group to blow the scam apart and show the real causes for the syndrome. As it turned out, it was just bad living excesses, alcohol and drugs, followed up with highly toxic "treatments". Most victims died from the treatments. Yet most of the world still believes it was a "virus"!
Read What Really Makes You Ill by Dawn Lester and David Parker.
Definitely worth reading. There's a section it it that describes the term "side effects" as being basically clever psychological marketing. There are no real side effects of pharmaceuticals, "side effects" are in fact direct effects of the drug being taken.
I'll take a stab at this- I would ask what are we calling "science" that medicine may or may not be based upon?
Years ago, while working in the lab of a world authority on a particular metabolic disease, I spent much time (unsuccessfully) attempting to learn the detailed mechanism of the metabolic pathway that purportedly caused that disease. Eventually, I asked my boss, a world authority, for help. It was an awkward discussion, and receiving no substantive answers, and I walked away thinking that nobody understood the mechanism.
Now, 3 decades later, having run thousands of properly controlled scientific experiments (including drug development for Big Pharma,) I have seen nothing to contradict the thoughts I had following that meeting with my boss.
Yes, we can add various chemical compounds to cells grown in culture (using cell lines most of which are chromosomally abnormal and contain heterogenous non-defined abnormalities,) and measure up or down regulation of some protein of interest. But, those results tell us nothing about the mechanism of the chemical compound's effect nor the effect of that chemical compound on an organism such as a human being. Yet, knowing neither of those critical pieces of information, and based on no additional information, those chemical compounds are prescribed to the public and called pharmaceuticals.
So, it that medicine based on science? Yes, if we use today's definition of science, the extrapolation of in vitro experimental results as being appropriately applicable to the expected effect in an in vivo animal. But, No, if we define science as understanding the mechanism of a particular disease (and that seems to be the story presented to deceive the general public) and somehow curing the disease by correcting a malfunctioning mechanism.
I would make this blanket statement- nobody on earth understands how anything in the living organism functions- it is simply too complex with its hundreds of thousands of interacting molecular reactions occuring at rates which could never be quantified or measured.
Twenty years ago (after my 5 yr stint with Big Pharma,) I divested myself of all Big Pharma stock, because I considered the entire industry to be unethical, corrupt, and dangerous. It has become much worse today.
Medicine has been mis-directed intentionally with established theories posing as fact.
These fraudulent facts stay intact because of the schooled daze. Regurgitation instead of challenging the status quo. And guarded by peer review.
These theories and facts don’t stand up to scrutiny which is why peer review was institutionalised. No dissent allowed.
Here’s what I’ve found:
Hydration not oxygenation underpins our physiology. Zero oxygen required.
I’ve logically dismissed the gaseous exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide. A left over from times past where animals were compared to machines.
We are not machine men using gases of combustion and exhaust.
Click on my blue icon to read: We breathe air not oxygen
It’s time you know the difference.
Oxygen is a product of air not a constituent of air.
Lily Kay wrote a book in the 1990's that should be more known.
https://archive.org/details/molecularvisiono0000kayl/mode/2up
Basically, chemistry/chemical reactions, albeit important, have become a foundational belief system of modern science.
It is such a small part of the whole though.
I disagree. Medicine is completely based on science. The problem is doctors have no critical analysis skills and/or don't read the science. The studies show that eg a treatment has a small statistical effect compared to placebo, or more usually another treatment, but no clinically significant benefit especially when the other non-beneficial effects are factored in. However, the treatment is FDA approved and is being promoted by reps whose steak dinner they've just been to or whose company is funding their research, ward or post.
Medicine is largely nothing to do with science. Science keeps pink and green separated. Medicine like much The Science™️ treats huge swathes of pink as if it were green. In other words its largely brown stuff.