The science of death

Physicians from Europe arrived for the first time in China in the late 16th century. The traditional doctors who met them found their approach to the human body peculiar. They seemed to know very little about the source of wellness or methods to prevent illness.

They were told about the reliance on dissecting cadavers to understand the human body. These doctors, whose training was in ancient and sophisticated folk medicine, concluded that the observation of the static anatomy of the dead overshadowed the physiology of the living.

The Chinese philosopher-physicians regarded western medicine as the science of death.

Over the following centuries, an ever-narrowing focus was applied to understanding disease, ultimately symbolized by a microscope in search of deadly pathogens.

Virtually ignoring a wider view and analysis of the creative process, medicine became focused on finding nearly invisible beasts which were still believed to be the core source of affliction.

A long time coming

Many people believe the recent vaccine rollout is enlightened by achievements of the highest order, including how quickly a specific remedy for COVID-19 was released.

Those who are not convinced that a wonder drug has been developed are intimidated by the hostility of a vociferous majority.

The defenders of vaccination insist that indisputable, objective medical facts have determined the approach to the pandemic. Their dogmatic arguments all are based on the false assumption that the virus is an enemy to be eradicated, and the vaccine is the singular weapon of choice.

Alternative views are rejected with an absolutism. By dismissing debate and mirroring the intolerance of the Dark Ages, harsh critics of the unvaccinated confirm their reactionary and hypocritical position.

Those who deny that the philosophical approach to disease is mired in the past, angrily assert that the advances of modern medicine are unassailable. Challenging the medical establishment’s majority position is now forbidden.

At the heart of the polarized debate is the definition of disease — everyone has a right to participate in implementing a model for good health.

Insistence on one point of view and supporting mandates to enforce it reflects how an antiquated system has infected the populace and politics with medieval perspectives and policies.

A mortal threat can cause an atheist to speak with god, convert a pacifist into a warrior, or transform a humanitarian into a fascist. Fear of the unknown, particularly when potential illness and death are looming, evokes the worst of human instincts.

Even the president of the United States feels he is empowered to further intensify the divide, blaming the unvaccinated for failures in the war on the virus.

Figuratively, dissenters are now burned at the stake, and from a psychological perspective, this condemnation is no different from 14th-century nobles and priests denouncing innocent people for causing the plague.

This insanity prevails because the proponents of inoculation have been assured by the infallible gods of medicine and their devoted ministry that the unvaccinated are responsible for the continuing pandemic.

They have no doubt that those who question this edict exhibit the height of irresponsibility in the war against a destructive virus. Everyone must give unwavering support to the government’s plan to defeat the dark elements causing the plague.

Leaders and supporters have transformed into a hostile mob, grandly claiming that any scientist, doctor, or journalist who questions the strategy of the battle is a dangerous liar and apostate. They insist the existential public health threat to every nation must be faced with a unified front.

This irate and intractable position is a thinly veiled charade.

Unrelenting vehemence and angry tirades are directly proportional to fears and doubts. A dogmatic stance is never an enlightened position — it reflects a need to suppress any dissent that reveals insecurity.

When anger fails, enforced dictates follow. However, the implementation of medical mandates with draconian tactics is ultimately detrimental to public health.

Echoing the irrational fears of medical science, and absurdly invoking the power of a threatening microbe, most governments will soon lose credibility in the handling of the pandemic.

The enemy is not the virus nor the unvaccinated. The only true threats are fear and intolerance.

To face this disease, we need an enlightened approach, particularly in developing innovative prevention for those at greatest risk and effective treatments for those who are ill.

A cabal with questionable morals and motives should not determine our future. Modern medicine will remain capricious and deeply flawed until a new open-minded, creative philosophy is applied to limiting disease.

The appropriate response to any genuine public health crisis needs to be debated, discussed, and implemented with a calm demeanor by the broadest range of informed individuals.

Establishing wellness begins with a rational and ethical discussion about what is truly effective, including a renewed emphasis on the importance of good nutrition.

There is room for optimism. If we recognize that supporting natural immunity engenders the greatest vitality, a renaissance in healthcare can emerge from this current plague of ignorance.