COVID-1984: The War for the Soul of Medicine

There are two ways to look at health.

They're not merely differing strategies, but entire worldviews. They are modes of interacting with reality itself.

For the past several decades, these two paradigms have been fighting for control of the field of medicine. Actually, they've been fighting for dominance of the human world itself, if you think about it.

The 2020 pandemic hysteria has brought this struggle to the foreground in mass-consciousness. The world is currently witnessing the climax of an ancient, largely hidden war, finally spilling out of its containers, the disguises falling away as both sides make their last-ditch plays.

Finally, the fight has captured the attention of the world. And this is good news.

Very good news.

Since the conflict is no longer hidden, it's going to be brought into mass-awareness, confronted, and processed - and then resolved, once and for all.

So what is the conflict?

What are the two paradigms?

The original paradigm - known by various names, including naturopathic medicine and holistic medicine - approaches health with the attitude of systems thinking. It treats the whole body as one interconnected system, in which every part potentially affects every other part.

In fact, it acknowledges the person as more than just the body. We are Beings. We are consciousness. And consciousness affects the physical world. Our mind and spirit affect our bodies.

And holistic medicine treats the entire person, as a person. It recognizes that even though an ailment is showing up in a specific organ, it's really an ailment of the total person, since the organ is part of, (and inseparable from), the totality of the person.

It's looks for the big picture. And if disease shows up, we inspects it within the context of the total patient: mind, body, and soul.

And the other paradigm...

...the one known as allopathic medicine, or technocratic medicine...

...only looks at the body, and only at the specific area, organ, or system where the disease is appearing. It dismisses the importance of any "bigger picture", as irrelevant at worst, and peripheral at best.

It emerged from the materialist philosophy, and as such, denies the existence of the spirit, and severely discounts and ignores the role of the mind.

If it recognizes consciousness at all, it's as no more than an "epi-phenomenon" - an "accident" - of the brain. Essentially we are, in the words of one Jamie Lannister, "nothing but sacks of meat and blood, and some bone to keep it all standing."

Just walking lumps of cells - atoms, really - which just happen to be "carrying around" a mind, located on the top floor.

It views human beings not as Beings, but merely as bodies, which, in turn, are nothing more than very complex machines.

It views all of Life as a machine, and thus, it approaches medicine from a perspective of mechanical engineering.

When a machine breaks, you summon a technician. And that's what a "doctor" is, in the allopathic / technocratic paradigm.

You summon him when something breaks.

He looks at the specific part that's not working, and then fixes or replaces that part.

And that's it. Then he leaves.

There's no need to know anything about the rest of the machine, as long as he/she knows what to do for the one part that "broke."

That's how machines work. That's how a car works. If your transmission isn't working, you fix the transmission, and then that's it.

And that's how this paradigm approaches human health. Like we're machines.

It's all about actions by the doctor - adjustments that he or she does, to you. From the outside.

And this reflects its origins in the materialist philosophy's exaltation of physical matter - the world outside - as the "only reality", dismissing the very existence of the world inside.

It views healing as something that must be obtained.

A product or service to consume. An extension of capitalism.

But naturopathic / holistic medicine acknowledges the world inside, in addition to the one outside, and focuses intently on the relationship between the two.

And so, if disease shows up, we entertain the possibility that it could be arising from within the patient.

It's a condition, or challenge, from the inside, manifesting in the physical body on the outside.

For example, if a person has atherosclerosis (heart disease), we'll try to figure out how and why the person got into such a condition in the first place.

What choices have they been making in their life, leading to this condition?

Have they been consuming animal products every day?

Beef and cheese and all of that?

Despite these industries being extremely cruel?

Have they been building up a lot of karma from contributing to the torture of animals?

Could that be manifesting in the form of their clogged arteries?

After all, the heart is the plexus of compassion - and if a person suppresses his/her compassion instinct regularly, and suppresses their spiritual heart, then could this have something to do with the condition of their physical heart?

This is a deeply inconvenient and humbling set of questions to ask. It's even downright offensive to some people.

"How dare you suggest that I made myself sick!"

"What a privileged, insensitive thing to suggest!"

"Hey! Stop blaming the victims!"

And this is where the allopathic / technocratic paradigm rushes in to "save the day", by helping the patient evade these questions.

It invented the idea of genetic determinism, to convince people that their diseases were written into them from birth, and there's nothing they could have done to cause any of it - and, more importantly, that there's nothing they can do to change any of it.

And then, to fill the hope void back up again, it rolls out the technology.

It builds a technological apparatus to "patch" the problem, so that you won't have to engage in any of that messy introspection. It shields you from self-knowledge. It absolves the ego of responsibility.

And it pursues that goal with more zeal than the goal of actually healing you!

It's more of a talisman against humility than it is "medicine."

Instead of teaching you how your choices led to your condition, it will just give you some pills, cut you open, rearrange your tissues, patch you up, and send you on your way.

It even goes as far as to treat disease as a foreign invader - an entity in and of itself - which must be "defeated." You can hear this in phrases like "Fight cancer."

And to "fight" this "war", it deploys the big guns, in the form of chemotherapy, which is a misnomer, as it is not a therapy in any way shape or form. It is poison.

The doctors admit this. They don't dispute the assertion that showering someone with nuclear radiation and pumping their blood full of toxins does not improve their health. It simply kills. It kills everything in its path. And the theory rests on the medieval, ghoulishly simplistic hope that the disease - the cancer cells - will die faster than the rest of the patient.

It's not medicine. It's violence.

In one paradigm, the body is a battlefield, and the goal is to defeat the enemy - to destroy disease.

But in the other paradigm, it's to cultivate health.

The holistic / natural paradigm builds health throughout the person's life, in every arena, and treats every day and every interaction as an opportunity where choices can be made, either to ignore health, or to cultivate it.

And in this paradigm, the role of a doctor is to teach the patient how to do that.

In fact, the word "doctor", which comes from Latin, literally means "teacher." He/she teaches you how to analyze your own environment and lifestyle choices, to help you understand the causes of their ailment.

A true doctor doesn't heal you - he teaches you to heal yourself.

Student and Teacher.


Machine and Technician.

And it's obvious which paradigm is the right one. Think about this:

Although the technocratic paradigm has performed a lot of wondrous feats, it has also constructed the maddest society in history, and pushed our planet to the brink of ecological collapse.