Can We Continue Trusting Our Health System? Carl Vernon.

 

YT link – https://youtu.be/UwqCES89xEs

 

 

~

How would we view the pandemic if this were 1990?

Would there be so much discussion and debate about what was really going on? The internet has given unprecedented power to propagandists, but at the same time it has become an incredible resource to free thinkers and those who question things.

Without the ‘benefit’ of social media and high speed internet, this might have been like living through the first gulf war: with no idea what to think or how to find out, most of us would have taken the BBC at face value. How far we have come since then, how far…

I don’t think this situation could have happened at all without the internet. The mind control techniques being used to egg up and prolong the situation have been mastered for at least half a century. But to roll out a global plan this way and impose changes before people could react and debate, could not have happened so thoroughly by newspapers and TV alone.

Marshall Smith called the 1918 Spanish Flu a pandemic ‘transmitted by telephone’. Interesting concept, once you get it. The energy medicine people would say this is all about disruption to the earth’s electric fields via radio equipment, and that each pandemic coincides with new Radio Frequency technology. And RF technology affects our physiology, causing cell death and lysis. All of that is moot, but where I agree 100% is that viruses are the result of the process not the cause.

I say it is much simpler: pandemics are in the head.

Viral epidemics are a psychological phenomenon, made real through our efforts to stop them. Person to person spread of viral illness has defied confirmation by experiment. There is no correlation between outbreaks and either population density or social proximity. Honestly! Antisocial distancing is all the more humiliating for its pointlessness.

Where people do nothing, there is no particular outbreak, unless there is air pollution or sudden change in the weather. Those are the two things that seem to cause actual clusters. In our area people seem to complain of a ‘virus going around’ whenever the council are out spraying the verges.

When people believe there is an outbreak, certain things happen to their physiology. But the real trouble begins when medical services start overreacting and treating every illness as if it were a death sentence.

The combination of mild illness with fear and overzealous medical treatment can be really dangerous. In 1918, many millions of deaths may have been caused by aspirin, since its usage was rolled out in insane dosages just before the October death spike. The death toll in the non-medical hospitals (where they weren’t drugging people) was close to zero.

This is the basis of the mass hysteria we are seeing now. But it gets worse.

Viral tests are potentially very misleading: they signify all kinds of inflammation and stress processes in the body. I’ve explained many times why you don’t need a virus to account for what has been happening in the world. All you need to do to is spread news of a virus, and let panic do the rest. The association with radio waves is simply a matter of better communications leading to more efficient spread of the psychological memes. Every advance in radio technology is an advance in the communication of ideas.

In addition, the presence of a novel virus has not been proven satisfactorily, as many others have explained better than I can, so I won’t labour it here. Suffice to say, don’t confuse a lot of impressive technobabble with actual proof of anything. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a new virus, but the scientific evidence for its existence is poor, and we have other explanations for what has been happening. The default assumption ought therefore to be that we don’t have a virus.

It’s a bit like the existence of Santa Claus: no proof either way, does not make it 50:50.

Remember that the placebo effect works both ways.

Fear trashes the immune system, and if people fear getting sick with a deadly disease, they can get sick as a result. And the faster and more powerfully you can tell everybody they are sick, the faster something spreads. The converse is also true.

We have to break this idea there is any kind of actual virus going around. Or, for those who remain convinced that there is a virus, we have to break the idea that it is so deadly and virulent, since even the official data do not support that.

Importantly, the official use of the term ‘cases’ has come to represent virtual cases. These are positive results from the dubious tests – numbers on a spreadsheet – not people struggling to breathe. There is no certainty of excess overall mortality anywhere.

The UK government’s own website has said since March 2020 that this is NOT considered a High Consequence Infectious Disease. Who knew?

Back at the start of the year, ‘leaked’ videos from Asia showed young healthy people collapsing in the street or vomiting blood. Clearly this is not the reality that has come to pass, and one has to wonder if those videos were staged or set up in some way, or taken from some unrelated situation. Yet the fear this generated seems to have stuck in peoples minds, and become the basis for their behaviour. The crisis has turned out to be nothing like those images, and is mostly man-made. A report by South African actuaries estimated that the crisis response would kill 29 times as many people as the crisis itself.

And yet, strangely, many people seem uncomfortable with the idea that their governments might have overreacted (those same governments who get everything right and never lie, of course).

But if fear and mayhem can spread faster than ever before, then potentially so can calm, truth and good sense. The more efficiently we can spread the word there is NOTHING TO FEAR in this virus or ANY virus, the sooner we will regain control of our destiny.

 

 

 

~

Theory: the explanation that best fits the available evidence.
Conspiracy: covert collusion to commit wrongdoing.

Until a couple of days ago, my view of world affairs went something like this. The world is basically run by a very large, loose and diverse network of wealthy and powerful people with connections in all sorts of areas, transcending national boundaries, co-opting governments and corrupting whoever and whatever needs to be corrupted in order to fulfill an agenda. The agenda is a mix of power and money. To many, this seems far-fetched, although it is the stuff of movies, novels and mainstream history. But now it seems the truth may be even further out there.

“What they don’t want you to see”

A century ago global power, such as it was, was concentrated in very few hands, while much of the world was still either backward, unexplored, or of little interest to the elites of the day. There were always the secret societies of course – old boys’ networks of influence and mutual back-scratching – and some of those were global in their reach.

Much like human flight, actual global power – one system, controlled from one point – was confined to the dreamsphere until near the end of the nineteenth century. At that time a small group, formed around Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Milner, had the combined resources and connections to begin sculpting the world according to Rhodes’ idea of perfection.

Their influence acted through an arrangement of circles within circles. Crucial to this system was that nobody in the outer circles knew anything about the inner circles. That way, various officials and administrators would know the vital projects they had to oversee and the downstream effects, but they would not know the bigger picture into which that all fitted. Hence a chat over dinner about, say, how wonderful it would be for a certain country to have a railway, could pull the strings to make it happen, without revealing any inkling of the real political motives for having that railway.

Milner’s forte was propaganda, later known as public relations; the art of dressing up any project to make it appear desirable. It has evolved ever since into a highly advanced science of mind control.

As well as his own colossal fortune, Rhodes had access to huge pots of Rothschild money for the purpose. Inevitably therefore his influence may not have been quite so central and autonomous. Undoubtedly, all sorts of tensions, turf-wars and deals must have occurred, and the story of the 20^th century is overt global conflict between nations, and the jostling of the various secret societies, banksters, oligarchs and dynasties. Governments have their own niche within that. Many of the supposed institutions of government, are in fact devices of the unaccountable elites and have very little if anything to do with the service of the public. Almost the entire structure of the European Union has become a paradise for nest-feathering administrators accountable not to the people of Europe to but to all kinds of faceless special interests. Most people have no appreciation of this, and hence it was easy to paint Brexit as the curmudgeonly will of a xenophobic British public, and not the urgent bid for freedom from tyranny that it really is.

So an absolute focus of global power might not have been achieved, but the structure of influence was international, varied and real.

And until now, that is largely how world power has been seen. The model is dispersed power and a never-ending dance between various players all trying to rise to the top and take ultimate power. They cooperate when they need to, and compete when they can. And, within that, a sort of dynamic equilibrium has been maintained.

Many modern day conspiracy theorists wonder if the world is dominated by a single evil empire with tendrils everywhere and one single mastermind at the top. But this has always seemed improbable, given that there are so many groups and competing interests. A more ‘ecological’ model has at least seemed more likely.

The destabilising power of the internet.

Against that backdrop came the rise of the internet, social media and powerful search systems, which have rapidly become dominant world players in their own right, carving out their own territory and occupying it. These are trillion-dollar enterprises, and the lack of competition is a huge red flag. Don’t think these outfits have grown up organically. There is a lot of evidence that they have had significant support from military and intelligence funding and technology. The internet itself was a largely developed out of DARPA research. It was also intended to be self-repairing and un-turn-off-able. Hold that thought.

What should be obvious is the potential of any powerful new technology to destablise a power balance. When the London Stock Market became computerised during the 1980s, it was suddenly possible for transactions to take place many times faster than before. This threw the financial markets into complete turmoil, with some holdings crashing to zero and others zooming skywards before anybody could react to the trends. Almost immediately they had to shut it down and start again.

And so it is with global power. To acquire information from the world, then make decisions about it, then put out information, disinformation and propaganda that suits ones purposes, is the essence of control. Modern weapons are primitive compared to being able to control what people think. Any advance in those areas can give a massive advantage to any corporation, country, political organisation or rogue actor.

Mind control science has in fact been highly advanced since the mid 20th century – it just needed the right technology to come along to make it really take off. Somebody would inevitably be first to have the technology.

A few days ago an independent documentary called Shadowgate was released online, and was taken down by YouTube within 24 hours. The content is unsettling to say the least. The film’s reporter was arrested on supposedly unrelated charges, and later released. The film, which includes testimony from two insiders, describes extremely serious crimes that go right to the top of government; and it names names.

I won’t post links to it here, as they keep changing. But seek and with a bit of effort you will find.

If Snowden was a bombshell, then Shadowgate is yet another level.

Not only were the American security services spying on practically the entire internet, especially in their own country, but they were also keeping copies of all internet traffic and analysing it. Those who say there is far too much information for them to sift, have not been paying attention. The capabilities for crunching data are frankly staggering, and getting more and more impressive all the time.

That much should be no surprise, but it gets much worse. As well as the main stream of information they are processing, they copy everything and pipeline it outside of government and outside of the USA. In other words everybody’s internet usage is recorded and put into the hands of private companies in several countries.

But it doesn’t stop there either. How the information is being used should make everybody sit up. For many years armies of trolls using fake accounts have been employed by governments to post propaganda and disinformation, to debate various issues, and to skew the trends on the web. They influence the news media, and everyone, from you and me to the rich and powerful. Algorithms could pinpoint the exact ways to push anybody’s buttons through social media, advertising and so on, in order to change their minds or fire them up in certain useful ways about practically any issue; to draw attention and support in any desired direction, or away from anything else. It can tempt, enrage and blackmail, and it is completely tailored to the individual. Or it can simply distract us, waste our energy, or tie us in knots arguing with each other.

Put another way, rogue actors in the US security services have been stealing the personal data of huge numbers of people, and handing it over to private companies in foreign countries, in order to engineer society. It isn’t enough to think that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. Even if you are innocent, the intelligence gained about your lifestyle, views, habits and beliefs is being used to control you in ways you do not understand.

And thus it is possible to start or stop riots, alter elections, control the mood of whole societies. It may have been used to create the illusion of a pandemic out of an ordinary flu season, and cause every country in the world to respond in perfect sync.

Creating the appearance of an outbreak is not difficult.

The CDC developed techniques for this decades ago when their budgets were threatened. There is even a medically recognised phenomenon called a pseudo-epidemic. If a pseudo-epidemic can happen by accident, then of course it can happen by design. But making it global, that is brand-new.

And for me, the most chilling aspect of all is that inevitably the system would become increasingly automated. Once automated, it is a very moot point as to who is really in charge: those who devise and employ the system, or the system itself. How do the designers of this evil know it is not manipulating them? Did they understand they were playing with fire?

One of the uses to which this system has certainly been put is to try and sway the US 2016 election. And when that effort failed, the system was used to then create the impression of wrongdoing by the winning side and so on. This is where the most damning evidence on the film is presented. But, did it in fact fail? Or is that what we are supposed to think?

The mainstream media is continually targeted by this system to ensure that the right messages get through to the public and the wrong messages do not. In short, our news, our behaviour and our entire world view is being controlled through this system. The ramifications are huge.

Individuals as well as groups can be targeted and influenced.

Clearly the power of such a system is like nothing else before it. Massive global change could be child’s play, for those with a hand on the mouse.

Imagine being able to switch off a pandemic and start riots almost overnight. Click, click, click… the media turn their attention away from the virus towards some other controversy; thousands show up ‘spontaneously’ at protests; buses full of trained agitators arrive; piles of bricks magically appear at the scene; the funding stream is there; the police get orders to pull back; the press are behind the riots; or against them, depending; the politicians take sides; issues are ignited and divisions are cultivated. Facts become irrelevant, and who knows what the truth is anyway? And the real trick is that almost everybody involved either believes in what they are doing or has their hands completely tied.

And the press, oh, the free, fearless press: quite likely mainstream journalists are utterly baffled by the criticism they are getting just now. They may imagine that they are still the epitome of in-depth investigation and critical analysis. But if their thoughts and background knowledge are being shaped by a powerful algorithm, they will have no idea they have become brainwashed pawns. None at all.

Meanwhile, in another country where the pandemic has died down to nothing, the politicians suddenly lose their minds and decree that whole cities shall be locked down without any warning and no checks or balances. The ‘confirmed’ cases are but virtual cases: numbers on bits of paper. Nobody is even sick yet. The police snap their heels together, and the population just go right along with it. There is no debate, no discussion, no meaningful opposition whatsoever.

Thousands of doctors and experts go online to comment, to point out that nobody’s life expectancy has actually changed, or raise some other objection, and within a very short time are simply deleted from the web. Some strings are pulled and the next day they are fired. The news talk about the virus, but say nothing about the politics.

Ordinary people may object, but they can’t be sure they aren’t just talking to themselves. How do you know you are even having conversations online with real people and not some machine? I mean, do you let gmail compose your emails now with its suggested phrases? Could it do more than that? The news media have already been caught using Deep Fakes, so you can’t trust video or audio either.

And the makers of documentaries arrive home and find the police there with a warrant to do with some unrelated infringement. Just like that.

Is this how the Arab Spring started? Is this why Boris Johnson fell for the utter tosh coming out of the Sage Group? Is this why President Trump suddenly decided that 5G is the most important innovation since the flushing toilet? Is this why the newly re-elected President of Belarus, is suddenly public enemy number one in his own country, just days after denouncing the official pandemic narrative?

And so, what may have been achieved finally is the concentration of incredible global power into the hands of a very small elite. The power is that much greater still because of the head start they have. Few of us can even imagine what may be happening.

Competition in such an arrangement is meaningless if even the competition have no way of knowing if they are being manipulated. The opposition do not even know what to oppose. All those other secret societies, criminal gangs, cabals, cartels, corporations, security agencies, militaries and governments have been completely blindsided. The good may have thought they were acting to uphold their values: the bad may have thought they were pursuing their own self-interest. But all have been duped into doing the bidding of a very few psychopaths.

The question they (and we) should all be asking is, how do we shut it off?

 

 

~

Warning: gross subject

Back when I was 23, impacted earwax caused me so much discomfort that I visited an ENT specialist. Syringing had failed to shift the blockage, and so this fearless man actually reached into my ear canal with tiny tools, and pulled out the rock-solid plug of wax mechanically. The pain was intense, and the bruising lasted several days.

I will never forget his advice and his warning:

“It’s because of your habit of using cotton buds. It’s pushing the wax further in and forming a plug. You must stop doing it.”

The trouble with this theory was that I had no such habit.

Despite always having had an urge to scoop and scratch inside my external ear canals, I had always resisted because, of course, everybody knows it’s supposed to be bad for you, and can apparently make the problem worse.

“But I don’t do that, I’ve always been very good”.

But he simply didn’t believe my protests. “Well, you must be doing something then”.

“Well, I do sometimes use earplugs when I’m riding my motorbike”.

“Why do you do that?”

“Because a minute’s riding at 70mph exposes me to an entire week’s worth of industrial noise allowance, and I don’t want to go deaf. But I haven’t used them for weeks”.

“Oh, well, if you’re stupid enough to ride motorbikes…”

And that was the end of the discussion. I was blissfully relieved; but also smarting, not from the operation, but from the unjustified telling off.

So it did make me wonder what evidence there is for the standard medical mantra, that “using cotton buds is dangerous”. Certainly there are alarmist headlines about people who got ear infections; anecdotes, in other words. As if ear infections MUST have been cause by the cotton buds.

There are various scientific studies of the cotton-bud using habits of visitors to ear-nose-throat departments, and certainly it seems from that self-selected population, that those who use cotton buds have more problems of inflammation, ear wax build up etc.

But what if it’s the other way around? This could all be interpreted as those who go to ear specialists are those with constant ear irritations, and who in desperation have wanted to pick and scratch as a natural first resort.

Does this point to a medical double standard?

What is strange is that while medical science seems hell-bent on telling us that the human body can’t be trusted – it goes wrong, it can’t function effectively without artificial support from medicine in just about every way we can think of – on this subject the message is absolutely the opposite; to trust your body and the brilliant engineering of our self-cleaning self-maintaining ear canals.

It must be because cotton buds are cheap, and nobody has yet come up with anything more glamorous, that will set them up with a life of first class travel and lecture tours. Because when that day comes, ears will suddenly be failure-prone, and in need of constant maintenance, and anybody who doesn’t keep them absolutely clean with some billion dollar innovation will be dicing with the danger of uncontrolled waxy build-up. Mark these words.

And being somewhat jaded, I have generally noticed that when it comes to maintaining health, as opposed to treatment of disease, medicine is wrong at least as often as it is right. And so I am deeply suspicious of official medical advice on anything resembling the maintenance of health. I mean, it has been completely wrong on sun, salt, saturated fats and much, much more. They’re still prescribing statins and opioids and roaccutane. They still advise icing sprained ankles, for heaven’s sake! So why shouldn’t medical consensus be completely wrong on cotton buds, especially as there is a total lack of randomised controlled trial evidence?

The good news, I have now run a pilot study lasting almost 30 years.

In the spirit of that rheumatologist (I forget his name) who decided to crack the knuckles on one hand and not the other for 50 years, I have been experimenting on myself. Since 1990 I have used cotton buds deep in my ears almost every single day. And I can tell you that my ears are objectively clear of obstruction and my hearing is faultless. Agreed, for a more rigorous trial I should have done one ear and not the other, but frankly I would have gone insane.

It is too early to say if the findings of this self-experiment are conclusive: further research is necessary.

Warning: the above is not medical advice. Never put anything in your ears. Cleaning your ears with cotton buds is dangerous. Don’t do it. Ever.

 

 

~

How is it that governments get away with doing bad things? A lesson that is never out of date

Donald Woods is a national hero of South Africa, but at one time the government considered him an enemy. He was a fierce critic of apartheid from within South Africa, and it may be hard now to appreciate what a dangerous choice that would have been.

When something is so clearly wrong and when the outside world is able to reflect an image of the situation, that must help one to keep a sense of perspective. But in the 21st century we have globalised problems, globalised injustices and globalised mistakes. When the whole world can at times seem a little crazy – when there are conspiracy theories everywhere and when the mainstream media can no longer be trusted – where can we turn for a sense of normality, for a baseline of what is right and what is wrong? How do we know what are the lies and what is the truth? Who are the heroes and who are the villains?

I think a man of Woods’ clarity and courage would have been able to help us. He would have recognised many of the lies and hypocrisies we face today, and understood the mind control tricks used to ease people into accepting oppression and injustice. He would have been able to show us how something very wrong, can seem right until it is too late. And he would have had us laughing at ourselves and that so much of what we stand for is ridiculous. If we were unable to see the joke we would be in really big trouble.

Here is Woods explaining to his children with incredible clarity how something as wrong as Nazism can get a hold of a nation.

Dachau Explained To Children – Donald Woods 1976

Many South Africans believed the “World at War” episode dealing with Hitler’s death camps shouldn’t have appeared on our television screens. They claimed this was because they didn’t want their children to see it….

Taking the opposite view, I watched it with my children, and for those who don’t know how to explain such atrocities I can offer the following approach:

You can’t understand why the Nazis murdered all those people? Well it starts with prejudice. Prejudice means judging people without knowing them, having hostile feelings towards people without sensible reason, regarding people as part of a group instead of as individuals.

Prejudice is like a disease, and children usually catch it from parents and other adults. But it can be prevented through good education, and sometimes it can be cured with psychiatric treatment.

Hitler didn’t have a good education, and he grew up prejudiced against Jews. He was never cured of his prejudice because he never had proper treatment. He found that many other people had the same prejudice against Jews, so he became leader of Germany by spreading scare stories about Jews and by promising to save Germany from them. Eventually he told his followers to kill all Jews, and that’s why there were places like Dachau.

Why didn’t they refuse? Well, in a nondemocracy people don’t ask questions when they are told what to do. They just do it. If they don’t they are called disloyal to the country. Yes, a dictatorship is the opposite of a democracy. A dicator is a person who is scared of most of his own countrymen and that is why he won’t let them vote.

Why didn’t someone report Hitler to the police? In a dictatorship you don’t have proper police. You have political police. Proper police fight crime. Political police fight opponents of the government. Yes, Hitler used to imprison people without trial. He used to ban and banish them and house-arrest them. He regarded people who disagreed with him as enemies of the whole country.

No, he didn’t really believe they were, or he would have let judges decide, wouldn’t he? Dictators play on the fears of ignorant people. Hitler knew how much his people feared communism, so he called people who disagreed with him Communists. In that way he got many of his followers to believe that good people were bad people, and that bad things were good things and that lies were truth.

Yes, there were many people here who admired Hitler in those days. Some are in our government today. But they weren’t the government of South Africa then. Our government in those days declared war against Hitler. Yes, the present government came to power in 1948.

What is a patriot? A patriot is someone who wants the best for his country, including the best laws and the best ideals. It’s something other people should call you – you shouldn’t call yourself that. People who call themselves patriots are usually liars. A wise man, Dr. Johnson, once said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. He meant that people who praise their own love of country are usually covering up their lack of it.

Yes, it is unpatriotic to love the things in your country that are wrong. When Dachau death camp was built, Hitler’s men put up a sign outside it: MY COUNTRY, RIGHT OR WRONG.

Those are among the most evil words ever written.

 

 

 

~

What do test results really mean?

Try this:

1) Imagine a disease that affects one person in a thousand.

2) Now imagine there is a test that can detect this disease before symptoms show. And imagine that test is 95% accurate. That is, it will detect a positive case 95% of the time. That’s not a bad test.

3) Now Imagine you have gone for the test, and to your surprise you have tested positive.

Given all that information, do you have the disease? How sure can you be?

If you said you were 95% sure you had the disease, then you would agree with most doctors when asked the same thing. But you would all be wrong. You almost certainly do not have the disease, in fact the chance that you have it is only one in fifty!

How can that be?

Well, remember that in a sample of 1000 people tested, one person on average has this disease. And a test that is 95% accurate is 5% inaccurate. So in that same sample of 1000 healthy people, there will be roughly 50 false positives.

So, in this fairly reasonable example, there are roughly 50 positive test results for every one actual case.

Are those numbers realistic? Obviously there is a huge range in both the reliability of tests and in the prevalence of diseases. But you can play with the numbers all you like, and you’ll find the problem doesn’t go away, it just becomes more or less severe.

This is one reason why I never go for routine screening tests. I only ever have a medical test of any kind when I have reason to think something might be wrong, or if I need a certificate of health for some purpose, eg work. And there have long been calls to abandon routine cancer screening for this exact reason: false alarms can start chains of events that could actually cause more death and suffering than the diseases they are looking for. However, in our culture of disease-phobia most people find that notion very hard to take in, either rationally or intuitively. And that makes disease a great tool for manipulating the masses.

The fact is that for many tests, especially for viruses, we have no idea how good they are.

Viral tests have particularly poor diagnostic power, since there is absolutely no correlation between a positive viral test and clinical illness: these tests are supposed to be able to detect disease agents in people who are clinically well. So, how do we know that these tests signify the causes of disease and not some random stuff, and who makes that decision? Elephants abound in that particular room, and knowing some of the science does not make this go away.

We now even have asymptomatic carriers who are not contagious! What is this super-dangerous thing they are carrying that doesn’t make them sick and can’t be passed on? I can’t even get my head around what ‘non-contagious asymptomatic carrier’ actually means. To me it sounds like ‘healthy person’ to the tune of moving goalposts.

And because of the holes in the science of virology, there is no way to test the test: there is actually no benchmark for determining the presence of the supposed virus, other than the test itself. Imagine you need to measure something but you don’t have a ruler; so you decide to make a ruler, but you have nothing else against which to check its accuracy. Everything is then guesswork. That is the same problem as designing a viral test. In short, some or all viral tests could be utterly hopeless, and there is no external way to check: they can only check their rulers against the thing they are measuring and hope their guesses about one thing or the other are correct. That is the sad state of the science at the moment, and if it sounds nonsensical to you, that’s because it is.

There are rival theories – good ones – and so maybe it is time to let the virus go. But this is all tangential, and leaving it aside for now, let’s just assume that viral PCR tests actually mean something diagnostically: false positives mean we still end up in the same place anyway.

There are four occasions I can think of when a false positive definitely could do you more harm than good. And some diseases fall into all four categories.

1) when the disease is thought to be especially serious, since the stress of the diagnosis could itself do a great deal of harm to your health.

2) when the disease could affect your life path. It’s tricky working as a surgeon, for instance, with a diagnosis of Hepatitis C, or AIDS. Even an unconfirmed or suspicious result could hang over you.

3) when the normal practice is to treat the disease before symptoms develop. There could be many people treated with dangerous drugs unnecessarily because of false positives.

and 4) has perhaps the biggest ramifications of all; when the disease is (believed to be) contagious.

For example, imagine testing positive for the current pandemic strain. You might be one of, say, ten false positives for every true positive (or one of fifty, or one of a thousand!). But you are unlikely to be told that. More likely you will be told the test is the test, the result is the result: trust it and move on.

Here is the kicker: symptoms or not, everyone you know must then be tested as well. And thus another generation of false positives emerges. By now the problem should be obvious.

So with mass screening the numbers can explode very quickly, giving the impression of an outbreak where there is none. The actual term for this is ‘pseudo-epidemic’.

It’s vital therefore to take into account actual clinical illness, and not just a colour change in a test tube or a readout on a screen.

At this moment we have around five million people enduring a radical lockdown in the Australian state of Victoria. The city of Melbourne has a plague of positive test results, not of clinical illness. And the response of the authoritarian government has been more testing and more false positives. This is a classic pseudo-epidemic.

The ramifications of shutting down an entire city and its region are serious and long-lasting, and this is happening on the belief that a positive test result equates to a ‘case’. Worse still is when ‘cases’ of serious disease must have radical treatment. The experience of SARS in 2003 was that many people, with perhaps quite survivable illness, were immediately put on cocktails of strong drugs that may have caused their deaths. Thus the ‘seriousness’ of the problem was incorrectly confirmed by their demise, and on it went.

It’s a well known cycle, and an easy trap for gung-ho politicians. Unfortunately the style of health policy-making in Victoria is very much to take expert advice, but only from the experts who support the government position. It’s an Emperor’s New Clothes situation.

And thus, as I have been saying for years, ALL viral pandemics are pseudo-epidemics, ALL are self-fulfilling prophecies caused more by fear and superstition than actual pathogenesis. After nine years in university learning about the sciences, my fear is not viruses but the knee-jerks of ignorant people in public office.

Whilst it is possible that there have been some genuinely virulent and deadly viruses in the world, the evidence does not strongly support their existence, and nor are they needed to explain any pandemic. ALL pandemics have other explanations. So at this stage scepticism is very sensible. All you need do to kill a great many people is declare that there is a deadly virus, then let panic and desperate measures do the rest.

In summary, the fastest way to stop these outbreaks, is to stop testing, announce that the world is safe once more, and let everybody go back to work.

 

~

Last week the memo came around, about the latest pandemic infection control guidance. Surely it amounts to common sense and ‘don’t spread infections’? I mean, where do they think we have been all our lives?

Infection Control is one of those heroic phrases beloved of various low-tier healthcare-related desk-jockeys. Tidiness junkies who fail to grasp the complexity of life, tend to see solutions as things to bolt on, rather than questions of why we have problems in the first place.

Is there really some secret to avoiding infections, that has all this time been kept from those of us with university training in health? And is the middle of a crisis now the time to reveal this occult knowledge?

So we will have to do a dance and tick some boxes; okay. The required outcome will of course be to have all the boxes ticked. Actual real-world outcomes are of little importance to members of the administrative classes. The fact that with all our years of training and experience we aren’t killing people is irrelevant.

I said uncautiously; “They should be asking us for advice on this, not the other way around. After all, we aren’t the ones spreading diseases”. It’s true: nobody has gotten sick in our facility, or in any facility like ours, anywhere. In fact our clients are overall much healthier than average.

The obvious response this invited was; “We aren’t treating the same sorts of cases. Public hospitals deal with serious conditions that we don’t. It’s just in case somebody asymptomatic comes to us and we don’t know”.

But big hospitals have been employing stringent infection control systems for well over a century. They get more and more stringent every year, and yet nosocomial infection (caught in hospital) is as big a problem as ever. All that hand gel, bleach and barrier equipment, and all those antibiotics, haven’t stopped hospitals being rife with infections. In fact they have produced new kinds of infection that couldn’t have existed without their help.

Long before this current media-driven crisis I had come to see ‘infection control’ through the same eyes as ‘war on terror’; great soundbites, leading to lots of serious-looking activity, but more likely to create problems or worsen them, than to solve them.

The war on germs has failed.

Why? Because we are being asked to go after completely the wrong part of the problem. Germs are not the cause of disease – they are the product of disease. If you don’t believe me, try living on nothing but white bread and coke and two hours’ sleep a night and see how long it takes for you to get an infection. The issue is susceptibility (a massive subject, one for another essay).

It’s certainly true that people with cholera, MRSA and yellow fever don’t generally visit us first of all. So in some ways that is right: we are not exposed to these situations.

But over the years I have treated plenty of patients in the midst of colds, flu, diarrhoea, pneumonia, whooping cough, ear infections, UTIs and much much more. And I have never caught anything from a patient.

As far as I know, none of my clients has ever caught anything from me. And I don’t let a bit of a sniffle keep me away from work. In college, absenteeism from clinic for minor illness was very much frowned upon. The phrase “unless you are at death’s door” is what we were told.

So that’s almost twenty years of trial. It isn’t that I never get ill, it is just that these things follow other patterns of which I am now aware, and have virtually nothing to do with who has been near me.

Outside of the operating theatre, and certain minor medical procedures where absolute sterility is obviously essential (basically any time a hole is made in somebody), there is little evidence that battling germs achieves anything, beyond a good level of basic domestic hygiene. The reverse is probably true: our lives quite literally depend on the ecology we share with microbes. Experimentally, animals kept in aseptic conditions (without germs) invariably die in a matter of days. There is absolutely no way to sustain them. On the other hand, a ride on London Transport exposes one to just about every pathogen known to man, yet we aren’t all dead as a result (pandemic or not).

There has been no suggestion of any outbreak being centred on any business in our field that I know of.

As well as all the coughs and sneezes that happen in my office as much as anywhere else, I have delivered hands-on therapy to literally thousands of people with verucas, warts, athlete’s foot, boils, cold sores, shingles, cuts, caries, earwax, runny noses and more. And my hands aren’t covered in warts etc. Don’t get me started about all those who show up for appointments without first showering. Then there must be countless clients who don’t know they have something, and there must be those who don’t tell me they have something.

And beyond an appropriate level of basic hygiene and common sense – changing linen, hand washing, cleaning the toilet, not spitting at people – we have not until now been doing anything particularly remarkable.

So why isn’t everybody in my business dropping to bits from other peoples diseases?

Answer: because it doesn’t work like that!

Contagion is one of the most entrenched superstitions in modern society, and outbreaks are one of the most willfully misunderstood phenomena. Why willful? Because the entirety of medical science would have to go right back to the drawing board if the truth were widely recognised. And it is commercially very lucrative just the way it is. That’s two reasons for starters.

If that all sounds absurd and medieval, it actually conforms to the research on clinical contagion much better than the conventional theory that disease is caused by proximity to others, which, on its face, is an absurd proposition. These problems have almost nothing to do with who has been near us, and what diseases they have. Sure, things come in clusters, and outbreaks, but there are other very good theories as to why, and those theories are not getting a look in. Once again, big subject, and another story.

Obviously I won’t convince everyone, so if you want a watertight case, ask a plumber. My job is to share what I have learned, not prove it: and your job, dear reader, is to decide for yourself by your own criteria. Don’t take my word for it, in other words: do your own research. [Useful searches might begin with Terrain Theory, Bechamp, Robert and Shelley Young, VIrus Mania.]

But, more importantly, it explains why social distancing, lockdowns, isolation, masks and endless toxic hand-sanitiser have made little if any improvement to the current crisis. What is in fact totally medieval is the media-driven one-dimensional panic responses of administrators (there they are again), and the selective silencing of real experts who, one after the other, are saying that we have got this all completely wrong. They all have different reasons, but the one thing they do all highlight is the absolute lack of science supporting the enforcement of a criminally perverse and dangerous social avoidance theory.

There have always been good reasons for basic hygiene.

Don’t get me wrong; we are not being cavalier about this. And of course we are cleaning and scrubbing and disinfecting and monitoring more than we did a year ago. Masks and gloves are always near to hand. There is nothing wrong in taking extra care when there is so much doubt and confusion. We are not bucking the programme in any way at all. But I am certainly questioning it, big time.

What I believe keeps us and our clients safe from infection is that our mindset on health and disease is very different to the medical mindset. Our theories are not germ-phobic, they are ecological, and that means we see the multidimensional nature of the situation. The answer to health lies in the promotion of health, on strong natural immunity, and on being on good terms with our environment; and not in the phony failed war on germs and disease. And that has a material bearing on our actions and habits, in many small ways that add up to a major difference.

Our business is empowerment. Medicine, on the other hand, has adopted a mindset of disempowerment.

“Do not trust your health, there is little you can really do. Surrender to the medical experts. Adopt an external locus of control. Health and disease are only a matter of chance. If your number is up disease will strike you, so be afraid. Your only hope is to find a good enough doctor, pray for those altruistic drug companies to come up with something, and live in a sterile bubble.” That is what we are being told.

Don’t you think there is something wrong with this picture?

 

 

~

The mistakes technocrats make – that will be their downfall.

[Note: this essay includes shameless generalisations and the tarring of several groups with the same brush. The reason is I believe that these groups a) are like peas in the same pod and b) are, wittingly or not, interwoven threads of a tapestry of control and disinformation. Can I prove this? I am not trying to: I am merely painting a picture that relates to a circumstantial case. I seek to open discussion].

Technocrats, globalists, aetheists and eugenicists make some fairly fundamental mistakes. In fact their varying associated philosophies are confused and fatally self-contradictory. Perhaps that is why plans for world domination have taken so long to unfold: at some level they can’t actually work, since they are formed in a fantasy world of controlling all that cannot be controlled. The problem for us ordinary mortals is that the self-chosen few are resourceful enough to do an awful lot of damage playing with their dangerous toys.

1) They think that nature has failed, that it is imperfect, and that it can be replaced by something better, created by themselves.

This delusion has yet to be borne out in practice, which rather suggests that the reverse is true. What has been shown time and again in practice is that one should not underestimate the potential of a handful of wealthy and well-connected megalomaniacs to do a great deal of harm trying out their crackpot ideas.

2) They believe that with enough data points and enough control inputs they can create perfection in all systems big and small.

But the universe has infinite detail and there are no limitations to the interactions between its elements. However many data points and control points they have, there are an infinite number of points in between, to which they have no access. Chaos Theory tells us that they can all matter. Even the highest resolution of data collection and processing cannot ever compete with a true analog universe. And once one gets to a very small scale, the attempt to represent analog reality with a digital or integer-based quantum physics leads to a very strange unreality, that may bear very little resemblance to the way the universe really functions.

3) They hate nature.

And they lack due respect for humanity and nature as the real driving forces for progress. All that is best in their world, are the things they can design and control. They claim that science leads the way and utility follows. In fact it is very much the other way around. It is a mere 350 years since gravity was first formally described, and yet we have dealt with it since the beginning of time without any problem. Even now there is still no explanation for gravity that makes any sense; or that makes any practical difference whatsoever to our lives. Science hasn’t even begun to address consciousness, but we all instinctively know that it has a useful purpose. And if nothing else, we enjoy it!

4) What they say and what they do are a big mismatch.

They will claim to be driven by pure reason while acting like spoilt children who twist reason to justify their own ego-driven ambitions. When called out on the inconsistencies, they tend to ignore criticism or simply move the goalposts of any discussion. People with lots of money and power can do this, because they do not have to listen to anything they find inconvenient. If you go to them with bad news they will just ignore you and pay somebody else to give them good news. Debating with them can drive one nuts, unless one realises they are not reasonable, rational people. To them, reason is just a tool to obfuscate and dominate. Once one accepts this, the debate can move to another, much more productive, level.

5) They treat science as a matter of choosing sides.

Their opinion is science, everyone else’s is mere superstition. Why? Because them saying so avoids them having to debate their position. Hence alongside the rise of technocracy we are now living in the post-evidence-based science era. Not that there isn’t plenty of evidence for why some heavily promoted technocratic theories are very badly flawed (including some whoppers, like health through pharmacy, and man-made climate change), it’s just that the evidence doesn’t seem enough to cause them to reflect.

6) They promote the principle of collectivism, a theory full of fallacies and contradictions, where the needs of society are supposed to outweigh the needs of the individual.

The rationale is that in order for the individual to be healthy, happy and free, society must be heavily controlled (ie. not free). And that for society to be safe, ‘dangerous’ nature must be defeated. It is unclear how there can possibly be collective health and happiness without individual health and happiness. Historically, highly controlled societies have been anything but healthy and happy, and millions killed in the name of such collective happiness and health might question the cost.

Such societies tend to adopt systems that become monsters over which nobody has any control. This is extremely dangerous. In such societies anyone seeking to change the system is risking severe punishment, right up to presidents, chairmen and prime ministers. All are servants of the monster. Millions can suffer and die in the name of the system.

A healthy society without healthy individuals is not possible. Achieving individual health, freedom and happiness through collectivism is a lie, a logical fallacy, an empirical failure.

What collectivism means in fact is that the individual must put his own needs second to the needs of the group. And if the individual objects to this, then there is always the reasoning that some other person un-named has needs that are being affected otherwise.

But, if your rights are more important than mine, and my rights are more important than yours, then neither of us in fact has any rights and neither of us has our needs met.

The good news is that I am not asking you to sacrifice your rights to protect mine, and I am willing to fight for your rights because they are the same as my rights. The current oppressive, unlawful, pandemic response has seen everybody’s rights removed and nobody’s rights protected. All those ‘other people’ are suffering as well. So, collectivism does not work. If it did, nature would not have provided us with individual consciousness, and self-awareness would have already wiped us out. Individual free will would not have survived the evolutionary process.

7) They believe that science and technology can solve all problems.

It is more accurate to say that science and technology have created most of our common problems, and solved a few. Any time you think you need technology to solve a problem, reflect on why you have that problem, and you will probably see that technology has had a role in creating it. It might not even be a problem. For instance, anybody who thinks mobile phone bandwidth is a problem is an idiot (or an investor in telecoms). Almost all common human problems have arisen out of failure to work within the limits of the natural world.

We must never forget that technology is the tool not the purpose, and is there to make life better, and it can only do that up to a certain point. Importantly, there is always a price to pay for the benefits of technology, and it is perfectly reasonable for an individual to say of any new technology “no thanks, that isn’t for me”, without being accused of hurting anybody. It is also a good strategy when faced with complex problems to consider ones own expectations, and whether they were problems one needed to have in the first place.

8) They don’t believe in intelligent design of the universe (creation by a superior being), and yet intelligent design is exactly what they want to achieve, in their god-like role as (self) chosen ones superior to all other life, all other humans, and all nature.

They can’t have it both ways. If they didn’t think nature could be improved upon they would whenever possible leave it alone to take its course, and invoke natural solutions as the first choice always. Seeking to do better than nature is chasing the holy grail of intelligent design. Nature does not offer everything we desire, but it does offer everything we need, and it is up to us to interact with nature wisely.

Logically, since the universe is effectively infinite, if intelligent design were possible it would already have happened. The obvious paradox is that if they truly believe nature can be improved upon intentionally, then they must logically support the idea of intelligent design in principle, and of it having already taken place in the creation of the infinite universe in which we live. Since it appears the universe we occupy is natural, it therefore follows that nature’s creations are better than any intelligent design of mortal beings. And if it is the work of supreme beings, then mortals should consider whether it is wise to try and do a better job than the gods. [If this argument isn’t clear at first, I suggest don’t struggle too hard with it, just let it sink in.]

I don’t have a major position on divinity, except to say that as a scientist I have no rational reason to exclude deities, and I also must respect those who find practical value in religion, being something that has arisen out of our evolved nature. Don’t expect everything of value to have a logical explanation, otherwise you will come unstuck as soon as you acknowledge your own consciousness.

You can’t have it both ways, Richard Dawkins – promote the theory of evolution then poo-poo the fruits of natural selection (eg the spiritual life of humans).

9) When things go wrong they blame nature, and when things go right they take the credit.

In fact nothing can work outside of nature’s laws, and when things go wrong it is nearly always from a failure to respect the laws of nature, or from trying to improve upon them.

10) They believe in a single best solution to every problem, and yet Charles Darwin is their hero. Have you spotted the paradox yet? If not, then read on…

In fact Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, was a founder of the eugenics movement. And eugenics proposes to subvert natural selection for the strength of the species.

But if Darwinism has anything to teach us it is about the importance of the individual, and the collective strength that comes from variation and free competition. This is a great example of the technocratic paradox; and of the wrong-headedness of thinking nature can be improved upon when it can’t.

The theory of evolution points absolutely to the importance of chance, competition, variation and redundancy in producing the most robust and enduring species possible. And yet, technocrats believe in control, uniformity, and reduction in numbers. The believe nature has somehow weakened the human race. Look around: it is man’s efforts to subvert nature that have weakened us: we don’t need more of the same.

By extraordinary coincidence, those who actively promote eugenics are also those who stand to gain from it. What technocrats are really doing is pretending that what is in their own interests is good for us. Eugenics is but their own competitive strategy.

Natural selection says; you do your thing and I’ll do mine, and only the test of survival will decide which way is best. The snake will not be offended if the mouse pulls away from its hypnotic stare. It will simply strive to become a better hypnotist. The mouse has no duty to the snake, and every right to use any means necessary to avoid becoming a meal.

Mother Nature does not hear appeals to reason. Survival is a clear cut matter: it is the only test that counts. In the event of some global disaster, there is more chance of the species persisting afterwards if we are not all exactly the same. If we are all the same and all make the same choices about how we live our lives, then we will all be vulnerable to the same threats.

Think about the context of so-called pandemics. Suppose there is a deadly virus that simply attacks, kills, and spreads unchecked. Our strength as a species depends on us not all having exactly the same physiology, on not all living in exactly the same environment, and not all responding in exactly the same way. It depends on there being huge numbers of us occupying many different niches.

To be sure the human race survives any unforeseen future challenges, it is essential that among us we have a huge variety of strategies for survival. As well as being different in our genetic make-up, we should have different habitats, different agricultures, different political systems, different laws, different medical systems, different traits and personalities – and different values and beliefs.

And in terms of our numbers, seven billion humans is really not that much biomass. The earth can support much much more than that. In fact, the more biomass, the better. Compared to the biomass the earth has lost in recent times, seven billion humans is nothing. What Earth can’t support is a huge number of large greedy corporations, which enables some individuals to have a disproportionate effect on the environment. And yet, corporations, institutions, and the visions of a handful of self-appointed ‘enlightened’ individuals changing the whole world is exactly what technocracy is all about; while at the same time it is against the individual, most of whom are totally innocent of causing any significant damage to the planet.

I will do what I can about plastic waste, but it is not me who is making billions out of designing a throw-away culture. The institutions set the flow, the individual must go with it. It is corporate greed that engineers our dependence on the waste of the modern world, and subverts our institutions to pass the pressure onto the public. When it goes wrong, the ordinary people take the blame and pick up the tab, the corporations profit from the solutions, and things keep going in the same overall direction. This is humanity’s never-ending struggle.

Most ordinary people want to live a good life, and possess a natural yearning to give as much to the world as they take from it, through their own increase. The needs of the individual and the needs of the planet are naturally in harmony: and technocracy’s promise to restore the balance, is like food manufacturers destroying thousands of nutrients through processing and replacing them with a couple of synthetic vitamins. Environmentalism is being exploited, to guilt-trip us into accepting all kinds of impositions and injustices, that ultimately serve corporate greed and power, not the planet.

So, you can stop blaming all the little people for everything that is wrong in the world, right now. It’s a mental trick; and if you believe it, then you are a victim of globalist gaslighting.

Real collective strength lies in a strong community that supports individual expression, not strangling or directing it. The aim of globalisation to homogonise everything under a single system of control governing everything, with conformity and uniformity imposed by authority and social credit scoring, is to set us up for much suffering at best, extinction at worst.

How does variation work?

Suppose you and I both get sick with a fever and a cough: and suppose you choose to go to hospital and take antivirals, and I stay home, rest, hydrate and take vitamin C. By allowing a variety of approaches, we increase the chances that one of us will survive and decrease the chances that both of us will die. Evidence Based Medicine suffers from the fallacy that what is best for the greatest number of people is best for the individual. In fact modern medicine has countless victims of collectivist thinking. If a new drug kills three people but saves four, statistically speaking, it is considered a success. And if in order to achieve that one net life saved you have to give it to hundreds of people, then that is considered worth doing, to the point that the deaths and side-effects must not be mentioned, lest uptake be affected and fewer lives saved. Worse still, however, is that the one life saved may be a mirage in the many possible biases of the science. So collectivism can talk us all into harm’s way very easily.

Extending that, vaccinating every single person against the current pandemic is the worst possible mistake that could be made.

Were there to be some fatal problem with the vaccine, that only showed up later on, then it could wipe us all out. And this is not a hypothetical problem. Batch problems and even design problems do occur in vaccines at regular intervals, and have caused a great deal of harm. The true history of vaccination is littered with disasters and mass-casualty incidents.

The way to ensure that one single mistake does not kill everybody on the planet is to ensure that we have the freedom to each make our own mistakes, and to own our successes. While that clearly accords with the scientific underpinnings that technocrats claim to have, it flies fully in the face of their social theories.

And generally speaking, it must be assumed that people left to their own devices, and not constantly brainwashed and drugged, will make the right decisions for them personally and their own families, that will be better than decisions imposed upon them by some committee or algorithm. Instinct is one of those highly evolved natural functions that cannot be improved upon, but that can easily be undermined. But worse, if we deny all human judgment its place (good judgment and bad), then once more we are heading into huge danger for mankind.

Our instincts allow us to navigate new and challenging events in creative ways. Our mistakes are our teachers. Non-conformism can be a vital strategy for survival and creativity, and for the advance of the whole community as well as the individual. But in a technocracy instinct is very much frowned upon. Central-planning and social credit scoring are really ways to suppress competition to the status quo, and that is not good for making a stronger species.

11) Whenever technocrats, globalists and eugenicists speak, they can’t help giving themselves away.

Ultimately in order for it to be fulfilled, an idea, however appalling, must be propagated and promulgated. In order for it to happen, they have to tell us about it. And so, they will make quite startling propositions for the future of society, then dress them up by telling us all about how good it will be for us and planet earth. And always, their comments orbit around some ambition they are desperately driven to fulfill. Tyrants will often speak politely as they show their true colours.

12) They think all ordinary people are mentally retarded and inferior.

Technocracy is driven by a sense of being better even than nature! As if three billion years of evolution can’t do the business of life as well as a few privileged nerds. The arrogance of these megalomaniacs and psychopaths is astounding. Technocracy’s sibling, Eugenics, is driven by the idea that some people are innately – genetically – superior to others. And of course it is the eugenicists who are superior by that ideology. What a coincidence! In fact three billion people are above average intelligence, and many are quite smart enough to see the blatant holes and glaring inconsistencies in these dangerous pseudoscientific ideas. You are under no obligation to believe anybody else who tells you how much smarter they are than you.

13) and lastly, every time they make a move, they show more of their hand.

If any good has come from the current engineered or hyped pandemic, it is to have woken up many millions of people to the reality of globalism and globalisation, and the staggering extent of the fake reality that has been built during the last century out of the lies and trickery of sociopaths.

 

~

Out of curiosity, I flicked open one of my old undergrad physiology text books. And I noticed something I had never noticed before. It doesn’t contain any references; not a single one! That seems curious for a university science text.

It does, however, contain a long list of contributors; experts who had been consulted. In other words, this scientific text is largely a matter of opinion, not facts that can be traced to source.

Alright, we could theoretically ask those experts where they got their information. Were this actually practicable, no doubt we would get a range of provenance, from scientific papers, to their own earlier training, to consensus, to ‘generally accepted’, to ‘that’s how I understand it anyway’, to ‘well, not sure where I picked it up, but that’s what we’ve always believed’. Of course some of it will be solid, we just can’t be sure how much.

That was quite a surprise for something that is supposed to be foundational to our understanding of physiology, onto which future learning and research is to be attached. How can we be sure that any particular fact among the thousands of facts it contains is true? And how true? Exact or approximate? Always or occasionally? Best guess or proven and repeatable? Perhaps some of the facts are more certain than others. Without references it all boils down to ‘this is what is believed’.

What effect does this have on future medical practice and research?

Texts like this form the foundation for an entire house of knowledge. What I have learned is that with all biological sciences, different opinions are available. In other words, all of medical science could be barking up many wrong trees, and might have been doing so for generations. There are good factual reasons for thinking this might be so.

There was always something comforting about it though.

In the world of the modern medical text book, there is a sort of machine-like precision with which the body works. Like a clockwork mechanism, you don’t need to worry about it unless it breaks.

Medical science has become a sort of utopia in which physiology just happens, unless pathology just happens, at which stage the body’s natural response is to take drugs. Everything is under control, yet beyond our control at the same time. All reasons for failure are pointed back at the patient, one way or another. Genetic, ageing, autoimmune, viral, idiopathic; all reasons why medicine can’t help. But at least you can comfort yourself that brilliant people are on it.

It appears as if the conditions for physiology to work are just there, they don’t depend on real world considerations of health, like minimising stress and optimising resources. Whilst there is some sense of the interdependence of systems, the academic attempt to separate everything out obscures the extent to which everything depends on everything else; and that when one thing changes, everything changes.

But in the reality of the natural healer, the body is always dealing with stress of one kind or another, in varying degrees. And the responses to a particular kind of stress are not absolute: there is a whole range of adaptations, short term and long term, to help us get through. And they affect both the gross and microscopic behaviour of every part of the body in countless ways, known and unknown. And furthermore, every response is individual. There is a system of multi-dimensional dynamic stability, that can never actually settle to a point of static equilibirum.

If somebody kicks you in the shin, it affects every cell in the body – immediately. And if somebody gives you bad news, it also affects every cell in your body – immediately.

And the same news to another person will affect them in a totally different way. To them it may be good news. It can be whispered or shouted, but the response is not dependent on the volume. So, some responses are not dose-dependent, they are signal dependent: and that is the basis, of, say, homoeopathy. Not only that, you must be able to receive the signal: if you don’t speak the language the news might have no effect at all.

But the point is, we can’t just draw nice pictures of the cell as if it were simply a machine, and assume it works always the same, whether we are running for a bus, watching television, eating an ice cream or jumping into a swimming pool. We can’t assume that it will work the same after a year of training for a marathon, or that it will revert once the event is over.

Then there is pathology: that is what happens when the body just ‘goes wrong’. And according to the scriptures, that is what happens when one is afflicted by a disease.

And so there is something very definitely missing from the medico-centric understanding of physiology and pathology. In that world, disease is something that just lands upon us through one mechanism or another. The body is essentially healthy, and disease just attaches itself, making it unhealthy. Flip that around, if we can drive away the pathology, the healthy body will be restored. This is essentially how heroic medicine has viewed healing for at least 150 years. It sounds wonderful in principle, and superficially it makes sense, because it accords with our experience of machines.

But we are not machines. And whilst humans are very good at fixing machines, most doctors these days are lousy at making sick people healthy. Living stuff is very different in a great many ways. It is a view that completely disregards the fact that disease is an adaptation to stress. It is caused by our actions, habits and environment, but it arises out of us. It is not a separate thing, and we cannot be diseased if we are healthy.

As Florence Nightingale wrote, there are no diseases, only disease conditions.

There is no pathology: there is physiology doing extraordinary things under extraordinary conditions (usually unnatural). And always the aim is survival. When a body is diseased, there is no ‘thing’ that that has attached itself, that can be driven away, or detached form the body that will thereby unchain the health within. The body is not going wrong, it is trying to go right.

Henry Lindlahr wrote that there is only one cause of disease; breaking nature’s laws.

The only solution to disease is health. To make disease ‘go away’, one has to remove the stresses upon the body and deal with the ways it has adapted. If one does not do that, then the body will simply keep adapting and adapting until it is exhausted, no matter how many brilliant palliative solutions are applied.

It is not natural healers who believe in magic, it is doctors!

Magical cures and miracles are for those who think health comes in drugs. The very word pharmacy means witchcraft! The promise of the druggists is that they can make disease go away and restore the body to health – without the patient having to change anything in their life. The impossibility of this promise should be obvious. You cannot poison sick people and expect them to become healthy a result.

Only in natural healing is it accepted that in order to heal, something must change. And even more than that, natural healers cannot heal anything: healing is what the body does, once it is given a chance. At first this comes as depressing news: it means we must make an effort. But it is actually very empowering: it means the patient does not need to find the most brilliant doctor in the world, or wait for some breakthrough. The power to be well is in their own hands.

And this also gives us a way to tell if a therapy is valid or not. Generally speaking, if the patient depends on therapy, they are not well, they are using therapy as a crutch, in order to not have to change. And eventually they will become sicker this way.

When the patient is genuinely healing, they will become less and less dependent on therapy as time goes by.

And this brings me to my own definition of health: it means independence.

Having mused on all that, I looked at a couple of other mainstay medical texts, and found the same thing: zero or minimal source referencing. These tomes are definitive descriptions of what is going on in somebody’s head, and not necessarily of what is going on inside the human body. Lindlahr wrote about the dangers of an anthropomorphic understanding of physiological systems, in particular the immune system.

    

Of course, most of my old text books are now out of date. I would not be able to sell them to a student. Only the latest editions are allowed.

So, now that they are out of date, what exactly has changed? The human body hasn’t changed. So, if the current understanding means that these books are now wrong, then weren’t they always wrong? And the current books will likely be wrong in ten years, so aren’t they wrong now?

Out of date means wrong! And wrong in some other time is wrong now!

In contrast, old natural healing books never go out of date. Being principles-based, they do not depend for disputable ‘facts’ for understanding, which will become old understanding based on out of date knowledge before very long. They are based on ancient wisdom and observation handed down over many generations – that which has survived – and not on the latest fashions for sale. Facts can change in an instant with one new piece of research.

And so the emphasis in natural healing texts is on principles, the patterns that only emerge over time, with experience and patience, and that remain solid even as facts come and go. Hence old natural healing texts are not blown on the winds of the latest research, but tap into the enduring ways of the universe.

In short, knowledge of nature’s patterns matures, it does not go ‘out of date’.

Summer follows winter. This is a pattern that humans can use, and which will never change. Natural healers exploit ideas on that level. If we throw that out in the quest for ‘objectivity’, we will forever be chasing phantoms. Facts are useful, but because of their fickle nature they should not have primacy. They also lead us towards the fallacy of one right answer, which will soon become the wrong answer. Principles lead us to a range of possibilities, and help us see the bigger picture.

What this all reminds me of is my first day of university. Our chemistry lecturer walked up to the microphone and paused. Once he had the attention of the 200 or so excited freshmen assembled in the large lecture theatre, he finally said:

“During your time here you are going to be taught nothing but lies. Everything you were taught at school about science is lies. Here you will learn some better lies. But they are not as good as the lies you will learn after you graduate”.

 

 

~

One of our staff came back from lunch yesterday saying “Have you been in [name of large store selling mainly cheap Chinese goods] lately? The shelves are practically empty”.

I hadn’t expected that. The large stores had been largely untouched by the crisis; or so we all thought.

Apparently the abundance of the large chain stores these last couple of months has been maintained by warehouse stocks that have now run down. Deliveries of cheap Chinese goods have been hit by the world crisis, and now it is showing. It may take them weeks or months to restock.

On the other hand, the small businesses in our area are well and truly opening up now.

Figuring I needed a new hobby, I decided to check out the local music shop. I’ve always wanted to play an instrument: the time had come, and I was keen to support the local economy. They must be struggling, I thought. In fact the place was packed. Everybody is taking up hobbies, from cooking to painting,  from fitness to fishing. The bookshop has been really busy, and even the crystal shop has queues.

Everybody is returning to the small shops where they get the service and information they need. Moreover, shopping in the large stores has been an unpleasant a humiliating experience.

And crucially, the small businesses are the ones with the flexibility to adapt to the circumstances – once the government takes the boot off their head, that is. In contrast, for the nationwide behemoths to change their business practices is a huge project, perhaps taking many months. The losses can be unbelievably huge.

We’ve all seen the effects of runs on food and toilet paper – fast to happen and slow to resolve. The small local businesses do not seem to have been affected in the same way. Many have closed their doors for reasons of ‘infection control’ and ‘government directives’, and may have gone under for that reason. They have been forced to shut, in other words. But crucially they have not closed because of lack of business opportunity; far from it.

Look at this all another way: suppose for the sake of argument there were to be a huge cataclysm, even bigger than what has happened this year.  Will the recovery of civilisation begin with supermarkets and nationwide suppliers of large domestic appliances? I don’t think so.

So here we all are thinking that the large businesses will survive, and many of the small ones will go under. Wouldn’t it be deeply ironic if it were in fact the other way around?

 

 

~