tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15114495700167965512024-01-23T16:08:23.609-08:00Personal Health Freedom<a href="http://personalhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2010/11/universal-declaration-of-health-freedom.html">Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of healthiness.</a>
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/NEW-Theory-Cure-Tracy-Kolenchuk/dp/B099BYN91J"> . . . . . . . .
. . ....... . .<strong>A New Theory of Cure</strong></a>Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08253567439934890622noreply@blogger.comBlogger166125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-62007366788449462662024-01-18T11:47:00.000-08:002024-01-18T11:47:56.051-08:00The Conspiracy Theory Vaccine<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuEtzBBJFqInIFDyILpiQOKY5iYNNKkl70tbIxnFdYs7Et7tt0QKqIrfDKdK2JjIbKBX8ib-rKgVT5pWUdLLeJZL263pbCU39iwANVgHPj82CL_MO2bZeoMrUS0kamdHgWj_OtpspiVXXOOc8I856R5MS_aSIkslNrpdduWIN6k5Iy63aXvMsOD66w-ng/s800/ConspircayTheoryVaccine.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="447" data-original-width="800" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuEtzBBJFqInIFDyILpiQOKY5iYNNKkl70tbIxnFdYs7Et7tt0QKqIrfDKdK2JjIbKBX8ib-rKgVT5pWUdLLeJZL263pbCU39iwANVgHPj82CL_MO2bZeoMrUS0kamdHgWj_OtpspiVXXOOc8I856R5MS_aSIkslNrpdduWIN6k5Iy63aXvMsOD66w-ng/s320/ConspircayTheoryVaccine.jpg"/></a></div>Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08253567439934890622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-72233207517789918182023-02-17T11:07:00.007-08:002023-02-18T04:08:44.773-08:00Anthony Fauci's Latest Publication - 60+ years of Experience Summarized<p><span style="background-color: white; color: #212121;">Jan 11, 2023. In CELLPRESS, Cell Host and Microbe<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #212121;"><b>Title</b>:<a href="https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1931-3128(22)00572-8&fbclid=IwAR1l3NQzm-momqO53QZLApj3sgdWh6uTksOhTJLwwKvTkK7IQ_M69kqpCKg" target="_blank"> </a></span><a href="https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1931-3128(22)00572-8&fbclid=IwAR1l3NQzm-momqO53QZLApj3sgdWh6uTksOhTJLwwKvTkK7IQ_M69kqpCKg" target="_blank"><span style="color: #212121;">Rethinking next-generation vaccines </span><span style="color: #212121;">for coronaviruses, influenza viruses,</span><span style="color: #212121;">and other respiratory viruses</span></a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #212121;"><b>Authors</b>, David M. Morens, (Anthony Fauci's replacement?) Jeffery K. Taubenberger (Viral Pathogenesis and Evolution Section, Laboratory of Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NationalInstitutes of Health), and Anthony S. Fauci</span></p><p><o:p style="background-color: white; color: #212121;"></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #212121;"><b>Introduction:</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #212121;">...Viruses
that replicate in the human respiratory mucosa without infecting systemically,
including <b>influenza A, </b></span><span style="color: #212121;"><b>SARS-CoV-2,
endemic coronaviruses, RSV,</b> and many other ‘‘common cold’’ viruses... <b>have not
to date been effectively controlled </b></span><span style="color: #212121;"><b>by
licensed or experimental vaccines</b>.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #212121;">...</span><span style="background-color: transparent;">As of 2022, <b>after more than 60 years of experience</b> with influenza vaccines,<b> very little improvement in vaccine prevention of
infection</b> has been noted</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #212121;"><b>Conclusion:</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #212121;"><i>...Durably
protective vaccines</i> against non-systemic mucosal res</span><span style="color: #212121;">piratory
viruses with high mortality rates <i>have thus far eluded </i></span><span style="color: #212121;"><i>vaccine
development efforts.</i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><br /></p><p></p>Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08798448795886352266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-42447060718153461852023-01-05T04:42:00.001-08:002023-01-08T06:26:55.594-08:00The Big Picture<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkKXUheYfkXKuEt2WusD2GTUnAqDZeQLP0ciG4WF3dltFN1sviVsnyKNFFY58b_aqgIhrlufivR6BZrIfdt3_Oy07iUWyL5fbubXl-wUErs5pj5XpLKkJqWfw-FMgCMJCK5jVn2rzFeFHVDSlrW7t8FcwoW38aP1zDrmGvxxw6JS4Kmt60a1RlJ8tY0g/s1266/Circles-of-Control.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="857" data-original-width="1266" height="305" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkKXUheYfkXKuEt2WusD2GTUnAqDZeQLP0ciG4WF3dltFN1sviVsnyKNFFY58b_aqgIhrlufivR6BZrIfdt3_Oy07iUWyL5fbubXl-wUErs5pj5XpLKkJqWfw-FMgCMJCK5jVn2rzFeFHVDSlrW7t8FcwoW38aP1zDrmGvxxw6JS4Kmt60a1RlJ8tY0g/w449-h305/Circles-of-Control.jpg" width="449" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><p></p>Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08798448795886352266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-42689571089119952992022-06-24T08:17:00.000-07:002022-06-24T08:17:37.262-07:00Safe and Effective? <p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYpLHWx0bGF7hEQd0lS9n6b1XuI74U7EDfCbtFFMam3TvmchaRVDMYK30nPQTjW1QEWzfNcU2Eq2bMeOEDzQd3u8nkL8ZpWVaM2OLb7mDgm7-j0XzYABieo-qACp6poKoOZ66d6u9OhDgc_C4zLhUqkHhMl60XEfEbhMGJne1t6i9xZYUEcExN2tXAEg/s940/cropped-Mask2-Soldiers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="554" data-original-width="940" height="189" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYpLHWx0bGF7hEQd0lS9n6b1XuI74U7EDfCbtFFMam3TvmchaRVDMYK30nPQTjW1QEWzfNcU2Eq2bMeOEDzQd3u8nkL8ZpWVaM2OLb7mDgm7-j0XzYABieo-qACp6poKoOZ66d6u9OhDgc_C4zLhUqkHhMl60XEfEbhMGJne1t6i9xZYUEcExN2tXAEg/s320/cropped-Mask2-Soldiers.jpg" width="320" /></a></div> As we walk around, trying to wake up from the past two and a half years, we seem to have two different groups asking related questions:<p></p><!-- wp:paragraph -->
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:list -->
<ul><li>Why are they <strong>still</strong> wearing masks</li><li>Why are they <strong>not</strong> wearing masks <br /> (<em>they</em>, in each case, being the other people) </li></ul>
<!-- /wp:list -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>It is interesting, and important, to understand that the reason we have these two groups has little to do with the question: <em>are masks safe and effective?</em> The safety and effectiveness of masks is an ongoing scientific study. We have dozens, possibly hundreds of studies measuring the safety and effectiveness of medical and non-medical masks, in many different medical and non-medical situations. Few people, if any, are interested in completing their own personal <em>meta-meta-study</em> before coming to a conclusion. If every decision as small as "<em>wear/don't wear a mask"</em> required a personal meta-study, no decisions would be possible. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>How do we decide? Fortunately, this too has been well and thoroughly studied.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph {"align":"right"} -->
<p class="has-text-align-right">"<em>Though truth and falsehood be near twins, yet truth a little elder is.</em>"<br /> - John Donne 1635</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>First, we decide what is true. Whether we are right or wrong is of little consequence. We decide first on a truth. Knowledge, existing even in plants and most animals, is based entirely on truth. <em>Is that plant Safe to eat? or Dangerous?</em> Even young humans, up to a certain age, cannot comprehend <em>untruths</em>. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph {"align":"right"} -->
<p class="has-text-align-right">"<em>the ability to deny propositions (i.e., truth-functional negation) is, in fact, one of the last linguistic abilities to emerge in childhood</em>" - L. Bloom, 1970 </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Learning and accepting truths is a first sign of intelligence. Understanding <em>untruth</em> requires a higher level of intelligence. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Or is that just silly. After all, some people believe <em>masks are safe and effective</em>. That's their truth. Other people can believe <em>masks are dangerous and ineffective</em>. Each has their truth. Yet, each is the <em>untruth</em> of the other. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>The statements are in opposition. Each individual believes one truth, or the other, at a time. Those who don't care act without either belief, - perhaps wearing a mask when required, and not, when not required. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:heading -->
<h2>Behind the Mask</h2>
<!-- /wp:heading -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>When we see someone wearing a mask, or not wearing a mask, we also need to understand that <em>mask wearing</em> (or not) does not indicate or demonstrate belief. There are many reasons for someone on either side of the mask belief to act in opposition to their beliefs. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:heading -->
<h2>Belief vs Disbelief</h2>
<!-- /wp:heading -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Belief is easy, common, intelligent and simple. Like all animals, we are designed to learn, to form beliefs. We all know how to form new beliefs - we practice it all the time. Even a feeble one hundred year old grandmother can learn that she has a new great-great-great-great granddaughter named Alice and believe that she is beautiful. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>But changing our beliefs is hard. Harder. Really difficult. Changing our beliefs means changing ourselves, giving up a part of ourselves that we have created, supported, and grown, sometimes for years. Many of us still remember our first love - we still want to believe even decades later. When someone close to us dies - we don't want to believe it. This is true of all of our beliefs. The longer and harder we hold onto a belief, the more it becomes a part of us, the more connected we become, the more difficult it is to change - no matter what evidence we encounter. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>People who have adopted the belief <em>masks are safe and effective</em>, who have held onto their belief over time, have protected and grown their belief, sometimes in the face of opposing opinions. When <em>safe and effective</em> believers see someone who is not wearing a mask, they might speak (internally or outwardly) about their beliefs, even challenging those who do not believe.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>People who have adopted the belief <em>masks are dangerous and ineffective</em>, who have held onto their belief over time, have protected and grown their belief, sometimes in the face of opposing opinions. When <em>dangerous and ineffective</em> believers see someone wearing a mask, they similarly speak out (internally or outwardly) about their beliefs. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>The specific belief does not affect the process. The same <em>belief formation process</em> applies to the belief that eating tomatoes, playing football, or parachuting, is safe or too dangerous. Of course, no-one would deny the dangers of parachuting, but they believe the benefits are worth more than the danger. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>No believer is able to change their beliefs without considerable effort. Learning is easy. Changing what we have learned is hard. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:heading -->
<h2>Communities: Another Layer of Intelligence</h2>
<!-- /wp:heading -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Communities - contrary to popular opinion, are generally intelligent, more intelligent than individuals. Communities consisting of many individuals, can hold, discuss, and analyze many variations of belief across many different situations, with many different gradations, dimensions, and colours of belief. This is impossible for most individuals - and they don't often have the time or inclination to try. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>When a community makes a decision, the community becomes an individual, sometimes like a tyrant, or dictator, or a mob, supporting a specific belief (rightly or wrongly) with more force than any individual. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Communities, like individuals, might decide to believe that: </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:list -->
<ul><li>masks are safe and effective</li><li>masks are unsafe and ineffective</li><li>we don't have a community belief: individuals are free to make their own decisions</li></ul>
<!-- /wp:list -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Diversity is natural, healthy, even intelligent. Communities are more likely to recognize the values of diversity and of freedoms. Communities are diverse. Sometimes, communities form around specific beliefs.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>We live in many different communities, from our family and household communities, to our faith communities, to our work communities, our market and business communities, to many layers of corporate and government communities - each vying for attention and power. A community that believes masks are <em>safe an effective</em>, depending on their belief and their power, might enforce mask use, even on individuals and communities who believe masks are <em>dangerous and ineffective</em>. Communities who believe that masks are <em>dangerous and ineffective</em> might likewise forbid mask use, even on individuals and communities who believe masks are <em>safe and effective</em>.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Individuals who believe masks are <em>safe and effective</em> might have a hard time thinking of situations where masks are <em>dangerous and ineffective</em>. Individuals who believe masks are <em>dangerous and ineffective</em> might have a hard time thinking of situations where masks are safe and effective. Gaining a more comprehensive, a more intelligent understanding often requires a community. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>However, once a community takes a strong hold of a belief, the community begins to behave like an individual. The belief becomes a part of the community. Once either belief, is held as true, it becomes difficult to change. Even after a community changes its belief, many individuals in the community might still hold on to the old, discarded belief. In addition, if a community changes it's belief, it often holds onto the concept that the prior, now discounted belief, was correct <em>at that time</em>. There is little to be gained - and some potential risk - in admitting a wrong in the past. <em>Denial</em> is a river of convenience when belief changes. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:heading -->
<h2> Elementary Beliefs</h2>
<!-- /wp:heading -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>It's easy to stand on either side of the <em>safe and effective</em> vs <em>dangerous and ineffective</em> question about masks without realizing that these are four independent beliefs co-joined to create one message, to support one decision. The elementary beliefs (not counting the additional "<em>don't' know don't care</em>" beliefs) are: </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Masks are safe. <br />Masks are dangerous.<br />Masks are effective.<br />Masks are ineffective. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>The claim that masks are <em>safe and effective</em> basically says "wearing <em>masks is good,</em>" while the claim that masks <em>dangerous and ineffective</em> says "<em>wearing masks is bad.</em>" Note: Masks, being things, do not act - they cannot in themselves be good or bad. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:heading -->
<h2>Who Wears Masks</h2>
<!-- /wp:heading -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>It's not hard to notice the age difference in mask wearing. Younger people are less likely to wear masks (unless forced to do so by their elders). But don't make the mistake, often promoted by the media, that age is the important factor in belief about <em>safe and effective</em>. Age is just a number. The real factor has more to do with health and disease. It's not the elderly who are more likely to wear masks, it's people who fear for their health. But, we might also notice that people who are handicapped, or who already have a chronic disease, are also more likely to wear masks.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Masks are a preventative. Designed and marketed to <em>prevent dangers</em>. People who perceive themselves as vulnerable are more likely to reach for <em>effective</em> and to discount <em>dangers</em> of the preventative action. Note: When there is no danger, preventatives are superfluous and only their dangers are relevant.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Mask wearing depends on fear, on the perception of danger, more than on a belief in <em>safe and effective</em>. If we are not afraid, safe and effective is less important. A perception of danger leads to mask wearing. Then the belief promotes itself. Wearing a mask promotes our belief in masks. Once the belief is held, like all beliefs, it become difficult to challenge much more difficult to discard. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:heading -->
<h2>Cure is Better than Prevention</h2>
<!-- /wp:heading -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Know this: if we want to make money... Preventatives are better than cures. <em>Prevention is better than cure</em> is a powerful marketing mantra. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>We can sell preventatives, like masks, to everyone - whether they the disease or not. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Sales of cures, on the other hand, are limited to those who have the disease, and limited to the short time when they have the disease. We can only sell cures to those with no disease by marketing them as preventatives.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Cures are not profitable. <em>Preventatives?</em> - profitable. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>If a preventative marketer wants to make money, the key to marketing preventatives is well studied: <em>increase fear</em>. As fear rises, people and communities are more likely to reach for (buy) the preventative. It doesn't hurt to discount cures. If cures are common, if cures as <em>safe and effective</em>, sales of preventatives will fall.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:heading -->
<h2>Risk vs Benefit</h2>
<!-- /wp:heading -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>In any activity, any sport, for example, actions that increase risk (sometimes even cheating) often improve successes. Even as many budding football players bodies are damaged and drop out of the sport, those who attain high success can earn more money than a <em>safe</em> job. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>When an illness is easily cured and forgotten, like simple cuts and bruises - higher risk activities like singing and dancing together, have minimal negative consequences compared to the benefits. But, when we believe the risk is high, we look for preventative actions. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:heading -->
<h2>A History of one Belief</h2>
<!-- /wp:heading -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>In the 1600s, Galileo challenged his community's belief that the sun revolves around the earth. His community penalized him in many ways, finally with permanent house arrest. There were individuals and small communities that believed in Galileo's heliocentrism in the 5th century BC, two thousand years before Galileo was imprisoned for refusing to change his belief.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Today, there are still individuals who hold variations of the earth-centered belief and individuals who hold completely different beliefs, like the flat earthers. They're not interested in changing their beliefs. And if they were? Believing is easy. Changing beliefs is hard.</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>To understand belief, we must study beliefs, how they function, that they function independent of truth or falsehood of the individual belief. <em>Masks are xxxxxx is a belief.</em></p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:heading -->
<h2>Diversity is Intelligent, Diversity is Healthy</h2>
<!-- /wp:heading -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>When we study belief, the theory of positive and negative beliefs, we notice that even simple beliefs, like <em>masks are good</em> or <em>masks are bad</em>, become more and more complex the more we look. We also need to recognize that the hardest beliefs to change are not those that are <em>right or wrong</em>, but those that we have supported through our statements, our actions, and our communities. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>To increase our intelligence, to improve our intelligence in any situation, we need to tolerate and accept differences in belief and corresponding differences in actions. When we are wrong, we can recognize our errors sooner, through the examples of others. We will also learn that right/wrong, black/white, good/bad, safe/dangerous, effective/ineffective are simplifications - sometimes useful, but seldom sufficient to meet all of our diverse needs. </p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->
<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>to your health, tracy<br />Founder: Healthicine<br />Author: A New Theory of Cure<br /></p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08798448795886352266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-36604912245492616042022-02-14T06:03:00.000-08:002022-02-14T06:03:06.310-08:00The Systemic Suppression of the Cured, their Cures and their Curers<p>How many diseases have we cured in the past 20 years? The past 50 years? When was the last time our medical systems found a cure for a disease? I'm not sure, but, having studied cure extensively, I have a good idea which diseases can be cured and proven to be cured - and which cannot - both officially and unofficially. The answers are simple and clear. </p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Official Cures</h2><p>Officially, cured is defined medically for a disease that can be cured by an approved medical treatment. That's why there is "<i>no cure for the common cold</i>" and many commonly cured diseases like influenza, measles, and the dreaded (forbidden word) flu. Most cases of these diseases are easily cured by natural healthiness, but, because they were not cured by "<i>an approved medical treatment,</i>" all cures and all cases of cured are simply ignored. In addition to ignoring all of these cases of cured, there are no statistics of cases cured for any disease. </p><p>What are the diseases that can be cured by an approved medical treatment? Officially, only infectious diseases can be cured. Officially, only some infectious diseases can be cured. Officially, only some cases. </p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Infectious Diseases</h2><p>Only infectious diseases cured by approved medical treatments, either by a drug that kills the infectious agent or by a medical surgery that removes the infectious agent, with a significant or insignificant amount of flesh also being removed.</p><p>The claim of a cured status can only be made by an approved medical professional, based on an approved medical treatment. The importance of this requirement must be understood. The consequences are far reaching. Let's begin with a simple example:</p><p> - a child gets a sliver, which becomes infected. A mother, father, sister, brother, grandmother, grandfather, friend or neighbor pops the infected flesh, perhaps with a sharp object like a needle, removes the sliver, and treats the infection by washing the wound, which heals naturally. Was the illness cured? Of course it was cured. Was it cured by the person attending? Yes, of course. Was it cured by a non-medical treatment, washing the wound with water? Yes. it was. But medically, there was no cure. The person attending was not a medical professional, the water was not a drug. The patient <i>recovered</i> from the infection, but they were not <i>cured</i>. </p><p> - if, on the other hand, the child gets a sliver, which becomes infected, and they go to a medical clinic where a doctor punctures and drains the infection, cleans the wound, and administers an antibiotic, the disease was cured. However, even in this case, the word <i>cure</i> is rarely used. The US/FDA, for example, enforces the statement "<i>only a drug can cure a disease.</i>" Most medical treatments, even those that can cure infectious diseases, are typically labelled as <i>treatments</i>, not as cures.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Avoiding the word Cured</h2><div>Our medical professions, conventional and alternative both, have a long list of weasel words to avoid saying cure:</div><p>– treat an infection<br />– defeat a cancer<br /> – reverse diabetes<br />– conquer hypertension and heart disease<br />– put arthritis into remission<br />– banish migraines</p><p>None of these phrases requires a cure. We might say <i>an infection was cured</i>, but doctors are not allowed to say <i>cancer cured, diabetes cured, hypertension or heart disease cured, arthritis cured. </i>Of course, any doctor can "say" cured, but it can't be proven so the word is avoided lest the speaker be seen as a quack. </p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Avoiding Infectious Disease Cures</h2><p>Which infectious diseases cannot be cured, in which cases of infectious disease can cured not be recognized. There is no scientific or medical test to prove an infectious disease is cured. The recognized medical test for an infectious disease cured consists of: </p><p></p><ol><li>Application of an approved medical treatment.</li><li>Proof that the infectious agent has been killed or eliminated by the medical treatment. </li></ol><p> - viral diseases cannot be cured and proven cured. The viral cause cannot be killed because viruses are not alive. It might still be hiding in the body. Even though there is plenty of evidence of individual cases of measles, influenza, and AIDS cured, the word cure is not used. This is most obvious with AIDS, where our medical professionals are attempting to define AIDS cured differently from other medical cures. </p><p> - chronic diseases cannot be cured, so chronic infections, by definition, are incurable. If a chronic infection is cured, the diagnosis was wrong. It wasn't a chronic infection. In truth, chronic infections have a chronic cause - over and above the infectious agent - which must be addressed to cure. But our official medical systems are not conscious of chronic cures, so they are classed as miracle cures. </p><p> - the common cold cannot be cured and proven cured. Why not? Because the cure is not medical. It makes no difference that almost every case is cured. "<i>There is no cure for the common cold.</i>" </p><p> - trivial infections cannot be cured and when they are cured, cannot be seen to be cured. If it wasn't cured by a medical professional, then it wasn't cured. But wait, there's more. </p><p> - if an infection was cured by an alternative medicine or by an alternative medical practitioner, perhaps a chiropractor, a traditional Chinese medical practitioner, a homeopathy or a naturopath, then cured cannot be proven. Cured requires an approved treatment. </p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Non-Infectious Diseases Cured? </h2><p>Cured is not defined medically for any non-infectious disease. Not one. There is no scientific or medical test to confirm any case of non-infectious disease has been cured. Can this be true? </p><p>The top ten disease causes of death in the USA according to the CDC are heart disease, cancer, influenza-19, accidents and injuries, stroke, chronic lower respiratory diseases, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, influenza and pneumonia, and kidney disease. Which are curable? </p><p>Heart disease, cancer, injuries, stroke, chronic respiratory disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and kidney disease are non-infectious. All are incurable. Influenza and flu-19 are caused by viruses - therefore incurable. Only pneumonia can be cured. One-half of one of ten.</p><p>There is one small problem. Individually, many cases of these diseases are cured. Can this be true? How can this be true? </p><p>Most cases of influenza and flu-19 are cured easily by natural healthiness. More are cured with the addition of approved and forbidden medical treatments. But there are no statistics for influenza cured.</p><p>There are many books presenting cures for heart disease. There are many claims of cancers cured. Even stroke might be severe, or minor, cured by healing. Of course if chronic respiratory disease is cured - the diagnosis was wrong, it wasn't chronic. Alzheimer's? If Alzheimer's disease is cured, we can easily assume the same - the diagnosis was wrong. It wasn't Alzheimer's. Diabetes? There are many claims of diabetes cured going back hundreds of years, and many books presenting cures of diabetes. But officially, diabetes is incurable. It's a non-infectious disease - so all cure claims are simply ignored. </p><p>Non-infectious diseases are incurable because cured is not defined scientifically nor medically for non-infectious diseases. Looking for a cure of a case of non-infectious disease is a bit like looking for water with dowsing sticks. Even you find it - the find is easily dismissed, easily denied. The science is clear. No proof is possible. </p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Conclusion</h2><div>Cures, curing, and cured are systemically suppressed. Why? The reason is obvious - only medically approved cures can be recognized, and most cures cannot be recognized medically. It's simply medical chauvinism. </div><div><br /></div><div>When a cure occurs naturally, it's not a cure. No cure can be proven. When a cure is caused by a non-approved medical treatment, it's not a cure. When grandma's chicken soup cures your cold - it's not a cure. </div><div><br /></div><div>We don't know cures. We don't know cured. We don't know curing. We have no scientific nor medical theory of cure to cover all cases of disease - so we can't find cures. We have no tools.</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/NEW-Theory-Cure-Tracy-Kolenchuk/dp/B099BYN91J/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="1002" data-original-width="1192" height="269" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjGLTX1kb7ux31TE__KdRuSGIFnDAWJn8WHKVg-RdAWrw88eCN_xX_ovS6SguUuHtOio_0fi8qMRvk2HFIYQHBIROXw9rxhG_7n-smoqhks1vKztXjj0sm0iWTx5lHkLK2tkOu8PKuOymrQlBCV37FE1qL8SxpvJWxpEB7Vk8d4hFR5aZ-IH4ghFRZPkw=s320" width="320" /></a></div><br />How many diseases have been cured in the past 50 years? We have no idea. We won't have any idea until we have a <a href="https://www.amazon.com/NEW-Theory-Cure-Tracy-Kolenchuk/dp/B099BYN91J/" target="_blank">theory of cure</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>The book A New Theory of Cure presents a comprehensive theory of cure covering all curable illnesses and diseases. There is no "old theory of cure." </div><div><br /></div><div>to your health, tracy</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08798448795886352266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-71792004359129887192021-11-21T06:36:00.000-08:002021-11-21T06:36:26.733-08:00 I am a Victim of Medical Apartheid<p>I have become a victim of medical apartheid because I refuse to submit to forced medication. <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 15px;">I did nothing.</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 15px;"> </span>I do not have the disease. If I did, it would pass in short order.<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 15px;"> I might be freed in heaven or hell, but not on the planet earth. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 15px;">I am not alone. I have many friends and family members in similar circumstances. Many innocent children are also being victimized. Sometimes I feel like an abused child. I live in a country where I cannot legally go to a restaurant or cafe with my wife lest I am fined - and the cafe owner, whose staff stop me at the door, is also subject to fines and even closure. I have many friends in the arts, but I cannot legally attend their showings or performances. I cannot travel on public transportation. I cannot attend public sports events nor any indoor public celebration.</span></p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 15px; margin: 0px 0px 18px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: keep-all;">Although I am, at present, allowed to attend church services, even church leaders are required to enforce new, arbitrary rules on capacity and behavior, without regard for their specific religion. </p><p>I did nothing to justify this. Nor did my friends, family members, or their children, all of whom are similarly affected.</p><p>I have many friends who have chosen to submit to round after round of non-curative, patented medical treatment at steadily shrinking intervals. Some have become so conditioned and confused that they are actively joining the oppressive forces that reject me. <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 15px;">Many are viewing the drugs and the situation with joy even as our bodies, minds, spirits, souls, and communities are being oppressed and damaged.</span> Even as they openly oppress others like me. </p><p>Many of them have been physically damaged, with serious and in some cases even deadly consequences. Many innocents, who tried to escape by submission have faced similar negative consequences. Only time will tell the truth - and even then, I wonder if we will ever see the whole truth.</p><p>Others are beginning to recognize the nonsense and the danger. However, even of those, many are saying they will not submit and will not oppress even as they excuse those who oppress as "<i>only doing their job</i>."</p><p>There appears to be no escape. Country after country around the world is being victimized, and in turn is victimizing their citizens without hint of legal process. What started with a debate about the effectiveness, or not, of masks, has become a slowly tightening noose. </p><p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 15px;">There appear to be no leaders, as if this oppression has come down from the heavens. At the same time,</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 15px;"> all of the rules are made and enforced by humans. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 15px;">Joining forces against the oppression has been forbidden. Resistance is ignored, suppressed and fact-checked into submission. All discussion in opposition is branded "<i>conspiracy theorizing</i>" and dismissed as unscientific. Notable authorities become pariahs, rejected by their communities, unable to form communities of like souls due to the oppression. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 15px;">I need help. We all need help.</span></p>Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08798448795886352266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-39633410733931624712021-07-20T08:19:00.005-07:002021-07-20T08:19:59.223-07:00A Letter to my Vaccinated Friends<p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">I have many vaccinated friends. Some have spoken quietly, “I got my second shot today.” Some have posted smiling pictures in the clinic or in a circle of flowers, happy, healthy images on Facebook and Instagram. When I see bragging, I fear they want me to join them. When I see the quiet ones, I fear some will get more than they signed up for. This pandemic is all about fear.</p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">I do not fear COVID. I never did. My first “two week lockdown” came when I was in Arequipa, Peru. I was shocked, and afraid. Not of COVID, of the governments. I knew immediately that two weeks was just a taste of what was, and is, to come. Two weeks became four. Shortly afterwards, soldiers arrived from Lima. Los Arequipeños were never well behaved. The bureaucrats were not amused. A few weeks later, we left for the security and safety of Canada, our home country. I never felt any immediate fear, nor fear of COVID, only fear of what the future might bring. </p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">I have followed and at the same time tried to avoid listening to the news. The stories and statistics were impossible to comprehend. They still are.</p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">I studied COVID, looking for cures. Most patients are cured, many before any diagnosis. Cures appeared in droves and were swatted down like flies. This continues today.</p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">For months, we have walked forward, blindly, in a tunnel ranging from panic to fear to hysteria. A friend quoted the title of a Pink Floyd song: Comfortably Numb. That’s describes how I feel and what I am seeing.</p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Then the light appeared. Vaccines will save us. At first it was a faint hope, gradually growing as several were rushed through emergency approval. The light continues to grow. I fear it may blind our friendship. That’s why I write this letter.</p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">I am not anti-vax. I am not vaccine-hesitant. I have been vaccinated many times in the past. As a traveler, I carried a vaccine passport, proving yellow-fever vaccination, necessary to visit Brazil – although I only got as close as the middle of the river at Iguazu Falls. I am 68, at the age where I constantly need to consider shingles vaccination.</p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">I also believe strongly in the basic medical right to refuse treatment. </p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><em style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">A patient may refuse treatment that the healthcare provider deems to be an act of beneficence out of the principle of autonomy.</em> In the <strong style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">United States</strong>, the right to refuse treatment is protected by 42 CFR § 482.13. and <em style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">A patient’s autonomy is violated when family members or members of a healthcare team pressure a patient.</em>..Patient Rights And Ethics</p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> <em style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">A patient has the right to refuse or to halt a medical intervention.</em> A DECLARATION ON THE PROMOTION OF PATIENTS’ RIGHTS IN <strong style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">EUROPE</strong></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> <em style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Patients must always be free to consent to or refuse treatment, and be free of any suggestion of duress or coercion.</em> Consent: A guide for <strong style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Canadian</strong> Physicians</p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">I am consciously exercising my rights to refuse medical treatments. I do not have COVID. I am not even a patient. Maybe I’ve had an asymptomatic case, but probably not. I have been tested several times. If I do get COVID-19, a normal case will last a week or two and be over, leaving me be more immune than any vaccine.</p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">I believe in basic medical science. Scientifically, the COVID vaccines are new technologies, largely untested. We will not experience “<em style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">one year later effects</em>” until at least December 2021. We might not understand the total effects for decades. As a result, <em style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">fully informed consent</em> is not possible at present.</p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Why am I writing this letter? </p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Some of my friends and family have expressed concerns about meeting with me, if I am not vaccinated. </p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">I am not afraid of COVID.</p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">If you are afraid, and afraid to be near me – let me know. Although I do not share it, I will respect your fear. </p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">I have my own fears, and I am always open to handshakes and hugs to alleviate them.</p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">to your health, tracy</p>Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08798448795886352266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-82604964469140114302020-12-13T09:04:00.001-08:002020-12-13T09:26:03.599-08:00CENSORED-19 Why do we have Vaccines but no Cures?<p> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0kRGt_3tYLTBXYfdMphbqlcCcIAMjJcAWLh3XNcIzVT9QUHiqUuogZJwmMk9W1cOZQYgCKWVYFBO22uH9cxBNN1vo_Kujj74bSat3FVUKopYt6oaU85wGetAmST97N6ZU4k-1CN7XvGuI/s1200/Elephant+cartoon05-Cures-Vaccine-censored-web.jpg" style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="673" data-original-width="1200" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0kRGt_3tYLTBXYfdMphbqlcCcIAMjJcAWLh3XNcIzVT9QUHiqUuogZJwmMk9W1cOZQYgCKWVYFBO22uH9cxBNN1vo_Kujj74bSat3FVUKopYt6oaU85wGetAmST97N6ZU4k-1CN7XvGuI/w640-h358/Elephant+cartoon05-Cures-Vaccine-censored-web.jpg" width="640" /></a></p><p class="io" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 24.0pt; margin: 24pt 0cm 0cm;"><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">According to current
statistics worldwide, over 48 million patients listed as RECOVERED from
CENSORED-19. The number rises every day. Not one person, however, is listed as
cured. At the same time, many companies are publishing successful research into
vaccines for CENSORED-19. Why can we produce vaccines but not cures? There are two
main reasons, both stemming from our medical views of cure and prevention.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h1 id="ce39" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 27pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 23.4pt; margin: 23.4pt 0cm 0cm;"><span face=""Helvetica",sans-serif" style="color: #292929; font-size: 22.5pt; font-weight: normal; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Cure<o:p></o:p></span></h1>
<p class="io" id="dafc" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 10.3pt; margin: 10.3pt 0cm 0cm; word-break: break-word;"><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">Cured is not defined for CENSORED-19. This is not
surprising. Our medical systems generally ignore cured except for <em><span style="font-family: "Georgia",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">infectious
diseases cured by a medicine that kills the infectious cause.</span></em> Even
in those cases, most cures are ignored.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="io" id="2fa3" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 24.0pt; margin: 24pt 0cm 0cm; word-break: break-word;"><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">Like the common cold, most cases of CENSORED-19 are cured
by health. While our medical systems say: “ <em><span style="font-family: "Georgia",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">there is no cure for the common
cold</span></em>,” millions of people get colds and cure them — but nobody
cares. There are no statistics of the common cold cured.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="io" id="1107" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 24.0pt; margin: 24pt 0cm 0cm; word-break: break-word;"><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">There is not a single validated report of CENSORED-19
cured. There are lots of claims and lots of denials. What about proof? Proof of </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19 cured is not possible, cured being undefined. There are tests for </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19, but no tests for </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19 cured. Note: It is also impossible to prove </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19 “not cured” because cured is not defined scientifically or medically.
No medical distinction is possible between a case of </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19 recovered, one in
remission, and a case of </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19 cured. We can’t tell if any second case in
the same patient is a remission or a new case. Without a scientific definition
of cured, we can’t tell. No definition exists.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="io" id="8d5a" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 24.0pt; margin: 24pt 0cm 0cm; word-break: break-word;"><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">Our medical systems often confuse “ <em><span style="font-family: "Georgia",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">is cured</span></em>”
and “ <em><span style="font-family: "Georgia",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">has been cured.</span></em>” Medically, <em><span style="font-family: "Georgia",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">has been cured</span></em> requires
an approved medicine. <em><span style="font-family: "Georgia",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">Is cured</span></em>, on the other hand, might
happen because of natural healthy processes or from alternative treatments —
but <em><span style="font-family: "Georgia",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">is cured</span></em> doesn’t count medically.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="io" id="277a" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 24.0pt; margin: 24pt 0cm 0cm; word-break: break-word;"><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">The CENSORED-CoV-2 virus causes </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19. Cured is generally
not defined for viral diseases. Viruses are dead. No medicine can kill them.
Our natural healthiness cures measles easily, but medically, “ <em><span style="font-family: "Georgia",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">there is no
cure for measles,</span></em> “ according to the Mayo Health Clinic. The
same is true of influenza and AIDS. It’s not about the virus. I’ve had measles.
It’s cured. But, there is no scientific or medical definition of measles cured.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="io" id="94b3" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 24.0pt; margin: 24pt 0cm 0cm; word-break: break-word;"><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">As we work to create a definition of cured for </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19,
it quickly gets complicated. A case of </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19 can consist of several elements
of illness. First, there’s the viral infection. However, we believe most cases
of CENSORED-COV-2 infection are asymptomatic. Eg. They don’t progress to a stage
where </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19 can be diagnosed. In those cases, </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19 cannot be cured. It
wasn’t there. As the infection becomes more serious, it can cause many signs
and symptoms, like a cough, possible loss of smell, and others, which need to
be cured. These are other elements of illness, and some can be classed as
independent diseases. As the disease continues to advance, there is a
possibility of a cytokine storm or a bradykinin storm, in some cases ARDS —
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, possibly followed by </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;"> pneumonia and </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-Treatment PTSD. Each element of </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19 requires a unique cure.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="io" id="6fd0" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 24.0pt; margin: 24pt 0cm 0cm; word-break: break-word;"><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">Our current medical system has no concept of an element
of illness based on present cause. As a result, it has no concept of a partial
cure, no understanding that a disease can require a partial cure. In addition,
although cured is defined for pneumonia, it is not (cannot be) defined
scientifically for loss of smell, ARDS or PTSD in our current medical paradigm.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="io" id="9674" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 24.0pt; margin: 24pt 0cm 0cm; word-break: break-word;"><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">We can decide to study cure and cured for every disease.
Our medical systems and researchers have no interest. No one is exploring the
concepts of </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19 cured scientifically. Everyone is busy <em><span style="font-family: "Georgia",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">looking for a
cure</span></em> (not defined) or <em><span style="font-family: "Georgia",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">developing a vaccine</span></em>. The same is
true of many diseases.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="io" id="655a" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 24.0pt; margin: 24pt 0cm 0cm; word-break: break-word;"><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">Most cures come from health, not from medicines. There
is no generalized scientific definition of cure in any conventional or
alternative medical theory. Curing </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19, and proving it cured, is
impossible in our current medical paradigm. Curing </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19 is possible, but
seeing it is not. The elephant is in the room — but we can’t see it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="io" id="1dcb" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 24.0pt; margin: 24pt 0cm 0cm; word-break: break-word;"><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">Prevention, on the other hand, does not require proof.
Proof of prevention is statistical. We cannot prove any individual case of
disease has been prevented. It’s not there. Maybe it wouldn’t have happened.
Prevention is statistical, as in the famous quote “ <em><span style="font-family: "Georgia",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">lies, damn
lies, and statistics</span></em> “.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="io" id="6440" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 24.0pt; margin: 24pt 0cm 0cm; word-break: break-word;"><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">As a result, it’s easy to develop a preventative:
gloves, hand sanitizer, face masks, social distancing, and vaccines. The burden
of proof is low. Fear drives sales. Failures are easily explained away,
increasing the fear; the patient didn’t do it right, the doctor didn’t do it
right, the preventative is not perfect, the disease is too strong, too
unpredictable… and so on.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="io" id="d8c3" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 24.0pt; margin: 24pt 0cm 0cm; word-break: break-word;"><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">Preventatives, however, are profitable, making money
from every sale. Even social distancing sells floor stickers and warning signs.
Everybody needs a preventative. The paradigm that ignores or dismisses cures
and sells prevention is very profitable. <em><span style="font-family: "Georgia",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">Prevention is better than cure</span></em> is
a useful concept, not always true. However, it’s also a powerful marketing
tool.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="io" id="28d3" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 24.0pt; margin: 24pt 0cm 0cm; word-break: break-word;"><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">Preventatives are sold by marketing fear. BE
AFRAID! <em><span style="font-family: "Georgia",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">There are no cures for </span></em></span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;"><em><span style="font-family: "Georgia",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">-19.</span></em><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="io" id="05ce" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 24.0pt; margin: 24pt 0cm 0cm; word-break: break-word;"><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">But, when someone has </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19, a preventative is no
use. Preventatives don’t cure. Even after patients <em><span style="font-family: "Georgia",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">recover,</span></em> we
can sell them a preventative. Maybe they’re not protected. Generating fear
increases sales.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="io" id="6d69" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 24.0pt; margin: 24pt 0cm 0cm; word-break: break-word;"><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">Cures, on the other hand, are the most powerful
preventatives. If we cure the infection quickly, it might cause loss of smell,
but it can’t create a cytokine storm, ARDS, </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19 Pneumonia, or </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19
PTSD. If we cure the ARDS quickly, we can prevent the pneumonia and PTSD.
Curing each stage prevents the next.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="io" id="b3bf" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 24.0pt; margin: 24pt 0cm 0cm; word-break: break-word;"><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">When we have </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19, <em><b><span style="font-family: "Georgia",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">cures are
better than preventatives</span></b></em>… But, most people only have </span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 21.3333px; letter-spacing: -0.0666667px;">CENSORED</span><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">-19
for a few days or weeks. After that, they don’t need a cure anymore. But we can
still sell them preventatives. Preventatives are constantly marketable,
continuously profitable, a revenue stream that can outlive the pandemic.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="io" id="4d92" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 24.0pt; margin: 24pt 0cm 0cm; word-break: break-word;"><span style="color: #292929; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 16pt; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">A cure is a one-time sale, whether it works or not. A
vaccine is a revenue stream. As long as we live in fear — even as the frequency
of disease drops, profits can continue to grow. Prevention marketers need to
keep us afraid, constantly reminding us to maintain constant vigilance — to
keep us buying.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikNPCNJi8jFoP9-7WLGU1wI9P1xF5SZHLoPEySw-Pnl3REanP67tphkMtxHnYO32xPU4jio9T1N1H_USOm7yI_WZJVKs35-Y2MPsGeUvqlhLvnelnDTKWvbsowyV_kkKY22ewjY6UQQMuI/s855/TheScienceOfCure-blog.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="855" data-original-width="600" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikNPCNJi8jFoP9-7WLGU1wI9P1xF5SZHLoPEySw-Pnl3REanP67tphkMtxHnYO32xPU4jio9T1N1H_USOm7yI_WZJVKs35-Y2MPsGeUvqlhLvnelnDTKWvbsowyV_kkKY22ewjY6UQQMuI/s320/TheScienceOfCure-blog.jpg" /></a></div><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">To your health, Tracy<br />Author: <a href="https://books.google.ca/books/about/The_Science_of_Cure.html?id=yukJEAAAQBAJ" rel="noopener" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #743399; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">The Science of Cure</a><br />Author: <a href="https://www.amazon.ca/Elements-Cure-Tracy-Kolenchuk-ebook/dp/B07M7KPPWQ" rel="noopener" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #743399; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">The Elements of Cure</a></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Author: <a href="https://www.academia.edu/41109111/A_Theory_of_Cure_Paper" rel="noopener" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; color: #743399; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">A Theory of Cure</a></p><p style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">This post is based on my answer to the Quora question: Why were the vaccines for CENSORED created quicker than the cures? </p>Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08798448795886352266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-21934830391754789782020-08-25T06:12:00.005-07:002020-08-25T06:12:48.527-07:00COVID-19 Treatments: Holistic or Reductionist?<p>There appear to be lots of treatments for COVID-19, although none are officially recognized by our medical authorities. This says more about the failure of medical authority than failures of treatments. There are two kinds of treatments (and similarly, two kinds of preventatives) for every disease - holistic and reductionist. What's the difference? This illustration, based on the concepts of the book: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08GD1CPSW/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">COVID-19 from Causes to Cures</a>, provides a clear explanation.<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08GD1CPSW/" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-7082 aligncenter" height="326" src="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Holsitic-reductionist-blog-n.jpg" width="620" /></a>Holistic treatments add to healthiness. But that's not all they do. Because holistic treatments add to our healthiness, they sum to improve more aspects of healthiness, resulting in summative, harmonic, and synergistic improvements.</p><p>Reductionist treatments aim to fight specific aspects of disease, using a divide and conquer model. Reductionist treatments aim for surgical precision, but surgery is dangerous. Most medicines require a prescription, which requires a specific diagnosis before the doctor can issue the prescription. Why? Because they are dangerous. Reducing healthiness increases danger. Medicines that reduce healthiness are summative in their reduction of healthiness. They sum to create more danger.</p><p>Holistic treatments are those that can be combined to increase healthiness and fight disease. With reductionist treatments, however, we need to be very careful about combining treatments, less we increase the risk significantly. That's the theory, let's look at some examples, using COVID-19 as our model.</p><p>COVID-19 is an infectious viral disease that sometimes creates significant damage, danger, and possibly death. Most cases of COVID-19, on the other hand, are easily addressed by our natural and present healthienss.</p><h2>Holistic Treatments</h2><p>COVID-19 Holistic Treatments are treatments that improve healthiness, giving our bodies, minds, spirits and communities more ability to fight the disease. Maybe you've noticed that most people who die from COVID are seniors. What do aging seniors have in common? We know that some specific nutritional deficiencies are common in aging seniors. Vitamin D is usually deficient, because their diets are low in D and seniors often suffer a deficiency of sunshine. Vitamin D is essential to fight viruses, and also for healing damage caused by the virus. Vitamin C is often deficient, because aging seniors can easily forget to eat, or choose to avoid foods with healthy amounts of Vitamin C. Vitamin C is essential to healing damage caused by COVID-19. Seniors can also be deficient in Zinc, omega fats, and other nutrients that are essential to a healthy response to COVID-19.</p><p>Adding these nutrients to a senior's diet is holistic. It improves their healthiness, and each action adds to overall healthiness, improving their ability to fight COVID-19.</p><p>Seniors, at home or in care homes, are often deficient in their consumption of water and other liquids. Fighting viral infections requires more water. Healing requires water. When we are dehydrated, we can become sluggish and less able to fight disease. Consumption of sufficient water is not a medicine, but it is a valuable holistic treatment for many disease, including COVID-19.</p><p>In addition, seniors often suffer mental deficiencies due to many aging factors, they might suffer from poor community support - family members have their own jobs to work and lives to live. Finally, seniors can easily become bored or suffer other decreases in their life spirits. Actions to improve mental acuity, community interactions, and raise spirits, like playing and enjoying live music, are not considered to be medical treatments even as they improve healthiness and healing.</p><p>Holistic treatments are rarely considered medical treatments - unless the patient is sick. Drinking water and taking Vitamin C supplements are not medicines, unless the patient is dehydrated or suffering from a Vitamin C deficiency. But they are almost always holistic actions. <a href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/are-you-suffering-a-deficiency-of-vitamin-m/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Vitamin M, music, is not a medicine, but it is a healthicine. </a></p><h2>Reductionist Treatments</h2><p>Drugs, for the most part, are reductionist. Sometimes, they can produce a long term health benefit. When we get a tooth pulled, a painkiller helps us through the suffering until our health takes over and we heal. Statin drugs are reductionist. They reduce specific healthy aspects of the individual - the presence of cholesterol, under the assumption that disease is present. Analgesics (painkillers) are reductionist, reducing our ability to feel pain, without actually making us healthier.</p><h2>Holistic can become Reductionist</h2><p>Sometimes, a holistic action reduces healthiness. Drinking water is healthy. For most people, drinking a bit more water is healthier. But drinking a lot of water is dangerous and drinking too much water is deadly.</p><p>The image above shows a gradient between holistic and reductionist actions. Holistic actions are general. Reductionist actions are specific. Most holistic actions can be reductionist in specific situations.</p><p>However, few - if any - reductionist actions can become holistic. Marketers for reductionist medicines would like to increase sales - and often suggest that "everyone should take (medicine X)." They are marketing medicines, not healthiness.</p><h2>Medical Approvals</h2><p>To be approved as a medical treatment, a drug must be reductionist. To be approved by the US/FDA, for example, the manufacturer must demonstrate that the drug can be used to "<strong>prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure a disease.</strong>" There are no approval mechanisms for any medicines that improve healthiness - because healthiness is not a disease.</p><h2>COVID-19 Treatments</h2><p>Like any disease, we might prevent, treat, and cure COVID-19 with holistic actions or with reductionist treatments.</p><p>Holistic actions cannot be approved to treat COVID-19, because holistic treatments cannot be approved to treat any disease.</p><p>There are no drugs approved to treat COVID-19 (except in emergency situations) even though we have been successfully treating most cases since its emergence. Approval is not about the product, it's about the process. So far, no company has made it through the bureaucratic (often called scientific) processes to have a drug approved for COVID-19.</p><p>Holistic treatments do not need to be approved.</p><p>So, according to the World Health Organization, "<em><strong>To date, there are no specific vaccines or medicines for COVID-19.</strong></em>" Why not? Because there are no proven reductionist treatments.</p><p>There are many holistic treatments for COVID-19. Maintaining Vitamin D and Zinc levels are powerful improvements in our natural anti-viral healthiness - before and during a COVID-19 infection. They are preventatives and curatives. Drinking water, maintaining hydration is important during a case of COVID-19, because fighting viral infections increases our need for water.</p><p>How many other holistic actions can be used to fight COVID-19? We don't know. They are officially - not recognized and therefore not approved by our medical authorities, not even those that are commonly used.</p><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08GD1CPSW/" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><img alt="" class="alignleft wp-image-7074 size-thumbnail" height="150" src="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/COVID-19-Cover-Kindle-2650-1600-150x150.jpg" width="150" /></a>to your health, tracy<br /> Author:<a href="https://www.amazon.ca/Elements-Cure-Tracy-Kolenchuk-ebook/dp/B07M7KPPWQ" rel="noopener" target="_blank"> The Elements of Cure</a><br /> Author: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08GD1CPSW/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">COVID-19 from Causes to Cures </a></p><p> </p>Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08798448795886352266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-18947561174714100472019-04-09T08:36:00.000-07:002019-04-09T08:38:13.347-07:00Why do so many people in the US believe in Pseudoscience?<div class="u-serif-font-main--regular" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.6;">
<div class="ui_qtext_expanded">
<span class="ui_qtext_rendered_qtext" style="tab-size: 4;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span class="ui_qtext_rendered_qtext" style="tab-size: 4;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMEAj7fEO-3ZwW03oyE8Ze75V65snKTXPOEx61p5xYhxjrXVKINNil6fhYXG8qbkxyETcyLdasqASBjFb8A5OGojihwSEQM02Lp5hqWEPNvCH0pVbMf-pxFPUj34iDRE2wd3w4z5xyZK0/s1600/PseudoScience-e.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="341" data-original-width="614" height="177" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMEAj7fEO-3ZwW03oyE8Ze75V65snKTXPOEx61p5xYhxjrXVKINNil6fhYXG8qbkxyETcyLdasqASBjFb8A5OGojihwSEQM02Lp5hqWEPNvCH0pVbMf-pxFPUj34iDRE2wd3w4z5xyZK0/s320/PseudoScience-e.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<span class="ui_qtext_rendered_qtext" style="tab-size: 4;"> <div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
Why do so many people in the USA believe in pseudoscience? I have a hard time understanding it myself, but it seems every day someone is claiming that X is pseudoscience, or Y is pseudoscience. </div>
<div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
It makes no sense at all.</div>
<div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
There is no science of calling things pseudoscience, other than name-calling. Things called pseudoscience range from acupuncture to ufology and more. None of them are sciences. None claim to be sciences. Why are they called pseudo-sciences? </div>
<div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
Many of the things classified as pseudoscience are simply nonsense - totally rejected today - like levitation and psychokinesis, bending spoons with the mind and the like. They are widely understood to be nonsense or magic tricks and are only brought forward as demonstrations of the folly of pseudoscience to support the propaganda. However, these are rarely debated in the media. Not many people in the USA believe in them. It's interesting that medical sciences actively use the concept of placebo effect, as if it were scientific, while rejecting the fundamental concepts of mental-physical interactions.</div>
<div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
Some of the things claimed to be pseudoscience are borderline. These are frequently seen in the media because there is considerable debate. The power of prayer and other faith based concepts fit here, on the strange boundary between placebo effect and pseudo-science.</div>
<div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
Some of the things called pseudoscience are simply not pseudoscience and the claims are an ongoing propaganda, negative judgement aimed at dismissal. Acupuncture is a clear example. There are many others. However, naming them without evidence, or even with considerable evidence risks being branded a pseudoscientific idiot.</div>
<div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
Many so-called pseudosciences are medical practices, not sciences. All medical practices are practices, not sciences. Most medical practices bear little relationship to sciences and instead pick and suit the science that suits commercial success. They use ideas and information gathered from science for technical purposes - and are more technologies than sciences. </div>
<div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
At first glance, it seems that anyone can call anything a pseudoscience. A closer look reveals the truth. Ideas shamed as pseudosciences are anti-bureaucracy. It's official (according to the bureaucracies). </div>
<div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<ul>
<li><span class="ui_qtext_rendered_qtext" style="tab-size: 4;"><div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
the bureaucracies, the corporate and government bureaucracies are not-pseudoscience,</div>
</span></li>
<li><span class="ui_qtext_rendered_qtext" style="tab-size: 4;"><div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
ideas and practices they support are not- pseudoscience,</div>
</span></li>
<li><span class="ui_qtext_rendered_qtext" style="tab-size: 4;"><div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
the ideas and practices they ignore or don't care about are “probably just pseudoscience” and</div>
</span></li>
<li><span class="ui_qtext_rendered_qtext" style="tab-size: 4;"><div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
the things they don't like or don't agree with are pseudoscience.</div>
</span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
A lot of things classed as pseudoscience are total nonsense, safely ignored, like ufology. Others are important practices like acupuncture, that deserve scientific investigation to aid understanding and to advance the practice. Instead, Western bureaucratic forces use pretentions of scientific processes to dismiss them.</div>
<div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
But, back to the question, and a direct answer: Why do so many people in the USA believe in Pseudoscience? </div>
<div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
<a href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/the-many-bureaucracies-of-modern-medicine/">Belief in pseudoscience is a belief in bureaucracy. A belief in the propaganda of national and international, corporate and government bureaucracies.</a> Many people in the USA believe in the concept of pseudoscience and judgements of pseudoscience claims because of the power of the media, skillfully wielded by the corporate and government bureaucrats.</div>
<div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
Corporate and government bureaucrats like to believe in pseudoscience because they can use it to further their bureaucratic goals and objectives.</div>
<div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
Media representatives like to believe in pseudoscience because it's news, because it sells.</div>
<div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
Of course, the corporate and government bureaucracies use the word pseudoscience as a negative label, so they claim to "not believe" in "pseudoscience". Maybe we should ask them if "doublespeak" is a pseudoscience? </div>
<div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; padding: 0px;">
To your health, Tracy</div>
<div class="ui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--start" style="direction: ltr !important; padding: 0px;">
Founder: Healthicine<br />
Note: This post began as an answer to the Quora question: <a href="https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-people-in-the-US-believe-in-psuedoscience/answer/Tracy-Kolenchuk">https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-people-in-the-US-believe-in-psuedoscience/answer/Tracy-Kolenchuk</a> </div>
</span></div>
</div>
<div id="wrUti6d866" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px;">
<div class="AnswerFooter ContentFooter" id="__w2_wrUti6d867_content_footer" style="color: #949494; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding-top: 8px;">
<span id="wrUti6d890"><span class="meta_num">4</span> Views</span><span id="wrUti6d893"></span><span id="wrUti6d895"> ·</span></div>
</div>
Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08253567439934890622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-68850177191984001342019-01-10T12:07:00.000-08:002019-01-10T12:07:15.075-08:00The Elements of Cure<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKhWxU0kd-_YTu2zrUBNSvR7IMfUhd1MIHie0SVlWDpWzGkWizvWJACcpM09ReHx_ew4_loNJyGM5kDJzY5ncwHEFfiFyQRtrKniT6YO-NmKNyDO5dX90ldzzexGwWgbCCLDY9NSukt1Y/s1600/BookCover-ElementsOfCure-kdp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="963" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKhWxU0kd-_YTu2zrUBNSvR7IMfUhd1MIHie0SVlWDpWzGkWizvWJACcpM09ReHx_ew4_loNJyGM5kDJzY5ncwHEFfiFyQRtrKniT6YO-NmKNyDO5dX90ldzzexGwWgbCCLDY9NSukt1Y/s320/BookCover-ElementsOfCure-kdp.jpg" width="192" /></a></div>
How big is a cure? How small? What is the smallest most elementary cure? Are there different cure elements, just as there are different chemical elements? How is a cure element defined?<br />
<br />
The Elements of Cure in less than 100 pages, provides a comprehensive summary of the concepts first introduced in the book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Cure-Mr-Tracy-D-Kolenchuk/dp/1729109187/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">A Calculus of Curing and updated in the book CURE, </a>a comprehensive view of cause, illness and cure.<br />
<br />
Available in Kindle and print format, the Elements of Cure defines the three elements of cure, based on the three fundamental causes of illness. It explores different types of cures, including complete cures, partial cures, compound and complex cures, and temporary cures. It makes clear distinctions between various cures and non-cures of treatments, remissions, statistical cures (cure rate), placebo cures and regression to the mean. It also covers miracle cures, natural cures, and alternative cures, providing a comprehensive and consistent view of the concepts of cure, cures, curing, and cured.<br />
<br />
What is cured? Do we cure the patient? The disease? The disorder? The medical condition? What's the difference between healing and curing? Are some diseases curable and others incurable? Are some fully curable while others are only partially curable? How can we tell? How can we know when a cure is complete?<br />
<br />
These questions are covered thoroughly and consistently by the Elements of Cure. Of course, every case is individual, and every case requires an individual analysis and decision.<br />
<br />
Whether you are a patient, a conventional medical doctor, or an alternative medical practitioner, you don't understand "cure". The concept of cured is largely ignored, even abhorred by conventional medicine. There is currently no medical definition of cure in any practice of medicine. Alternative medical practices sometimes claim to cure but provide no definition of cure that is accepted by conventional medicine.<br />
<br />
How can cure be defined? Like any science, the science of cure begins with definitions, with theory, and develops with practice. Practice tests and improves theory, theory improves based on practical experiences. It's time.<br />
<br />
Let's begin the practice of curing:<br />
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07M7KPPWQ" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Order the Elements of Cure for your Kindle. </a><br />
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/1792968108" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Order the Elements of Cure in print.</a><br />
<br />
to your health, tracy<br />
Founder: Healthicine<br />
Author: The Elements of CureTracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08253567439934890622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-67438489072271099852018-10-11T10:00:00.003-07:002018-10-11T10:21:31.797-07:00Strange and Surprising Facts About Placebos <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdnuz5-hI2FNb0H2ZyGdCZU8FGZnlzve-5SPHwuOunzOdpJ7-U0OkjNnz_dymgqEZwV9s5HCV63j0eB2PNQUVu17tXbNtBrOxyqJf9bxWf-SwVB1dOvi8u6xPy2I0BHRDA7BK-DN76tyg/s1600/Placebo-Echo-CHECKUP2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1017" data-original-width="951" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdnuz5-hI2FNb0H2ZyGdCZU8FGZnlzve-5SPHwuOunzOdpJ7-U0OkjNnz_dymgqEZwV9s5HCV63j0eB2PNQUVu17tXbNtBrOxyqJf9bxWf-SwVB1dOvi8u6xPy2I0BHRDA7BK-DN76tyg/s320/Placebo-Echo-CHECKUP2.jpg" width="299" /></a></div>
Placebos and placebo effects are strange, stranger than we think. What is truly strange, truly surprising about both, are the basic facts.<br />
<br />
The simple, clear definitions of placebos and placebo effects are seldom studied, seldom recognized. The words are often used inaccurately and inappropriately resulting in nonsense. What are the facts?<br />
<br />
Placebo has two contradictory meanings. Many people assume a third meaning, which is documented, almost as a footnote in Webster's dictionary (see the bottom of this post for Webster's definitions).<br />
<br />
<h3>
Placebo - Historical Definition</h3>
<br />
Placebo, a real placebo, is created by a doctor, and cannot exist without a doctor. Anything, any real or fake treatment can be a placebo when:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>the <b>doctor believes</b> a patient has a medical condition.</li>
<li>the <b>doctor knows</b> of no beneficial treatment for the condition.</li>
<li>the <b>doctor prescribes</b> a treatment with the belief that it will not help the patient’s medical condition, but that it will help the patient feel better. </li>
</ul>
<br />
The treatment is then referred to as a placebo. Often it is an important treatment for other medical conditions.<br />
<br />
Real placebos are defined by real doctors, with real intentions to help the patient. When it helps the patient, both doctor and patient benefit. When the patient is cured, both doctor and patient benefit.<br />
<br />
A real placebo only exists as a result of the belief, diagnosis, judgement, and action of a medical professional. Real placebos are created by doctors, in the practice of medicine. They are often created using treatments that cannot, in theory, help the condition, but they are used because of a history of working. Sometimes, success trumps understanding.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Clinical Placebo</h3>
<br />
A clinical placebo is an intentionally fake medicine, specifically designed by researchers, to NOT help the patient. Clinical placebos are administered to patients in a clinical study, with an intention to NOT provide any benefit.<br />
<br />
The intent of a clinical placebo is to provide a benchmark for a commercial product. Clinical placebos are sometimes even designed to trick the patient into believing they are receiving the medicine, by selection and design to produce side effects similar to the medicine being tested.<br />
<br />
A clinical placebo only exists when created for a clinical study by a researcher or medical professional. Clinical placebos require the belief of a medical professional, that it provides no benefit, and the actions and intentions of a medical professional, to administer the placebo to NOT provide benefits to selected patients.<br />
<br />
Clinical placebos are designed, created and administered by the doctor or medical researcher. Their existence requires a medical professional.<br />
<br />
Clinical placebos, like all placebos, "work". If they don't provide any benefits to the patient's condition, they are not considered to be placebos. Clinical placebo treatment arms of clinical studies consistently provide real, positive improvements in the patient's condition. This is expected. Those benefits and their causes, are intentionally ignored by researchers.<br />
<br />
When a clinical placebo helps the patient more than the medicine being tested, the research project fails. Benefits provided by a clinical placebo are deliberately ignored, seldom published, and rarely studied.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
Placebo - Common Usage</h3>
<br />
In common usage a placebo is anything that makes the patient feel better, but does nothing to help their medical condition, and cannot cure any disease. However, this definition applies to most medicines. Most conventional medicines are <a class="" href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/medicine-symptomicine/">symptomicines</a>, which do not cure any disease and cannot claim to cure any disease. Most medicines are designed to address only the signs and symptoms of a disease.<br />
<br />
The word placebo, in common usage, is generally applied to alternative medical treatments, as a term of dismissal. It is rarely applied to conventional medical treatments - even if they fit all the definitional requirements of a placebo.<br />
<br />
Comparisons of conventional medicines to alternative medicines is a debate which can be summarized in the question:<br />
<br />
"<i><b><a href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/which-medicine-does-not-cure-better/">which medicine, conventional or alternative, DOES NOT CURE better?</a></b></i>".<br />
<br />
<h3>
The Placebo Problem</h3>
<br />
Clinical placebos and real placebos are both called placebos, even though<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>they are created by the intentions of the doctor</li>
<li>the intentions of the doctor are dramatically different for real placebo vs clinical placebo</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
In addition, most people, even many doctors, use the word placebo without attention to either standard medical definition.<br />
<br />
Common usage of the word placebo is often extended, without any scientific evidence, to cover any alternative to a conventional medical treatment. Anyone, with little knowledge or authority, can say "<i>it's probably just a placebo</i>" without any understanding much less proof, and never risk being challenged.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
Placebo Effect</h3>
A Placebo effect exists when:<br />
<br />
1. the <b>doctor believes</b> a patient has a medical condition<br />
2. the <b>doctor believes </b>the condition has been treated, by themselves, by another doctor, or perhaps self-treated by the patient.<br />
3. the <b>doctor observes or believes</b> the treatment was followed by an improvement in the patient’s condition, possibly even a cure, although cures are rarely studied.<br />
4. the <b>doctor believes</b> the improvement was NOT caused by said treatment.<br />
the doctor dismisses the treatment, often dismissing the benefit as well, calling it a “placebo effect”.<br />
5. The <b>doctor cannot know</b> the cause of the improvement. If the cause is known, it’s a real effect with a real cause, not a placebo effect.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/placebo-effects-busted/">Placebo effects are created entirely in the mind of the doctor</a>. True placebo effects are caused by the beliefs of a doctor who does not understand the cause of the effect. Placebo effects are not caused by the beliefs of the patient.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Common Usage: Placebo Effect </h3>
<br />
In common usage, a placebo effect is caused by the beliefs of the patient, the benefit is imaginary and placebo effects are bad. This theory is simplistic and ignores many basic facts:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>A placebo effect is a real, positive effect on the patient's condition. By definition: placebo effects are good. </li>
<li>Every effect has a cause. Every cause has a cause. Every placebo effect is a real effect, with a real cause, a real chain of causes. The patient's mind cannot bend spoons. The patient can bend spoons, once they set their mind to bend a spoon, but bending a spoon requires additional actions, additional causes. </li>
<li>Pain and many other symptoms are increased or decreased by deliberate or even unintentional actions of the patient. These actions are real, not imaginary causes of the benefit. The benefit is real, not imaginary. </li>
<li>Drug manufacturers make intentional manipulation patient's beliefs in creating and packaging medicines to increase their effectiveness against signs and symptoms of the disease. This is a real effect, intentionally created, not a placebo effect. </li>
</ul>
<h3>
Placebo Effect Claims</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Most claims of "placebo effect" are made by non-doctors, or by doctors making claims outside of their area of expertise. In addition, most claims of placebo effect are equivocations, like "<i>It's probably just... placebo effect.</i>" A true claim of "<i>placebo effect</i>" requires that the speaker, or the doctor NOT understand the cause. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Why do so many people make false claims about placebo effects? Because claims of "<i>it's only placebo effect</i>" create status, make the speaker seem important, like a doctor. Such claims are seldom challenged, giving status.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Placebo Cures</h3>
<br />
Can placebos cure? <a href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/the-annotated-cure-a-healthicine-view/">Do placebo effects include cures</a>?<br />
<br />
Cures are not studied by conventional medicine - except for a few diseases caused by pathogens and parasites. Cured is not medically nor scientifically defined for any non-communicable disease, and cured cannot be tested, cannot be proven for most diseases. <a href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/disappearance-cure/">The word cure does not appear in many medical dictionaries and is not defined in any medical treatment reference or text.</a><br />
<br />
We don't know if placebos or placebo effects result in cures, because of our lack of understanding of cure.<br />
<br />
Clinical placebos are generally used in clinical studies on diseases that cannot be cured. However, because cured is not defined medically, if a clinical placebo, or the medicine being tested results in a cure, the cure cannot be noticed, cannot be documented. It is outside the parameters of the study. Cured is seldom defined for any clinical study.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Placebo Myths</h3>
Because of the conflicting definitions of real placebos vs clinical placebos, and the conflicts between conventional medical practitioners and alternative medical practitioners - there are many nonsense myths about placebos and placebo effects.<br />
<br />
"<i>Placebos are medicines or treatments that provide no medical benefit.</i>" Truth: A placebo is not a thing. A placebo only exists when a doctor uses something - any treatment - as a real or clinical placebo. Placebos, by definition, provide benefits, real improvements in the condition of the patient.<br />
<br />
<i>"Placebo effects are a result of the beliefs of the patient.</i>" Truth: placebo effects require specific beliefs of the doctor, and require that the doctor does not know the cause of the effect, and believes it was not caused by the treatment. The patient is not required to believe and might even have negative beliefs about the placebo treatment and still receive positive results.<br />
<br />
"<i>Placebos effects are imaginary.</i>" and "<i>Placebo effects are bad.</i>" Truth: placebo effects are real, positive, measurable improvements in the condition of the patient. Placebo effects are good. Placebo effects are a threat to conventional medical practitioners and researchers, because they are - by definition - unexplained. When they are explained, they become real effects.<br />
<br />
"<i>Benefits provided by alternative medicines are generally placebo effects, created by the beliefs of the patient, not true benefits.</i>" Truth: The distinction between conventional and alternative medical treatments is an artificial marketing distinction with no scientific basis. Inaccurate or inappropriate use of the phrase placebo effects, without evidence, only extends this lack of understanding. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzrTxE7pmLZTgytb6k7GmsVwMKl2CVk_FkKcfwese1IacxBgibV1PcgRHMVSUQyGkb09ql6bJ6rY-QdPV4rggLd7GacVVYwtgugHgKyELYLIVKCuQUlsqEgWV3kvJidv_AGurmCQC26jY/s1600/BookCover-ACalculusOfCuring-LOGO.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="248" data-original-width="254" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzrTxE7pmLZTgytb6k7GmsVwMKl2CVk_FkKcfwese1IacxBgibV1PcgRHMVSUQyGkb09ql6bJ6rY-QdPV4rggLd7GacVVYwtgugHgKyELYLIVKCuQUlsqEgWV3kvJidv_AGurmCQC26jY/s1600/BookCover-ACalculusOfCuring-LOGO.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
to your health, tracy<br />
Author: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Curing-Cure-Cures-Cured/dp/1986878422/">A Calculus of Curing</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Curing-Cure-Cures-Cured/dp/1986878422/">A Calculus of Curing provides a clear, powerful definition of cure, cures, curing, and cured by separating illnesses and diseases into illness elements - each of which can be cured.</a><br />
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Curing-Cure-Cures-Cured/dp/1986878422/"><br /></a>
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Curing-Cure-Cures-Cured/dp/1986878422/">If clearly defines cure, compound cure, partial cure, temporary cure, and other variations of cure.</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<h2>
Dictionary References</h2>
<br />
<b>Webster's: Placebo: </b><br />
<i>1. a: a usually pharmacologically inert preparation prescribed more for the mental relief of the patient than for its actual effect on a disorder</i><br />
<i>b : an inert or innocuous substance used especially in controlled experiments testing the efficacy of another substance (such as a drug)</i><br />
<i>2 : something tending to soothe</i><br />
<i><br /></i> <b>Webster's: Placebo Effect:</b><br />
<i>improvement in the condition of a patient that occurs in response to treatment but cannot be considered due to the specific treatment used </i><br />
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08253567439934890622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-79968478495196292017-11-01T17:59:00.000-07:002017-11-01T17:59:51.066-07:00Why does the FDA not crack down on supplements?<div class="qtext_para" style="color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
The FDA does not crack down on supplements. It's not their role. The FDA cracks down on “<i>claims</i>”. That’s what the FDA is about. If you don’t make a claim in the packaging or the advertising, then it’s not a “drug” in FDA-speak. If you make a claim, in the packaging, then it is claiming to be a “drug” and requires FDA approval. This is an important distinction. The FDA does not approve products, it does not approve drugs, it does not approve supplements, it approves claims.</div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="qlink_container"><a class="external_link" data-qt-tooltip="fda.gov" data-tooltip="attached" href="https://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/labelingnutrition/ucm111447.htm" rel="noopener nofollow" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: url("//qsf.ec.quoracdn.net/-3-images.new_grid.external_link.svg-26-aef78ead48f1f1e2.svg"); background-origin: initial; background-position: right 0.3em; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-size: 10.5px; color: #2b6dad; padding-right: 15px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Label Claims for Conventional Foods and Dietary Supplements</a></span></div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
<b><i>This is an important aspect of freedom.</i></b></div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
I am free to buy garlic, as plants, or as foods - bulbs, or as pills - as supplements. I’ve free to eat them whole, to roast them, to add them to anything I am cooking and to buy garlic sausage - and other foods that have garlic added.</div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
Anyone is free to sell garlic, as plants, as food, as supplements or as pills, as long as their sales literature does not make a “health Claim” and as long as it makes no “substance function claim”.</div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
I am free to believe what I want about garlic.</div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
If someone sells garlic pills, or bulbs, or plants, claiming that they “are good for disease X”, they are selling a drug, not a supplement. The claim must be approved by the FDA, or the FDA will crack down. If someone sells garlic plants, or bulbs, or plants, with a printed claim that garlic “helps digestion”, they are making a substance function claim, which must be approved by the FDA or the FDA will crack down.</div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
The FDA is the “Food and Drug Administration”. They regulate, and crack down on drug claims and on a substance function claims.</div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
<b><i>There is another important aspect to freedom.</i></b></div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
Anyone can claim that garlic is good for colds, flu, for keeping vampires away. We are free to make claims - as long as we are not packaging and selling garlic.</div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
Frankly, a lot of what the FDA does is a scam. The FDA approves CLAIMS, not products. The FDA does not evaluate any products, it only evaluates claims. The FDA does not care about disease, or illness, or health. They care about claims. It’s a bureaucracy. </div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
The FDA approves HEALTH CLAIMS. What the FDA calls a “<i>health claim</i>” is actually a “<i>disease claim</i>”. It is not possible to submit a “health claim” to the FDA unless it contains reference to a disease. The FDA also approves “substance function claims” - which are closer perhaps to a health claim. However, it only approves, or refuses to approve, those claims when they are submitted as part of a product package or marketing initiative.</div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
The FDA will accept minimal evidence for any “drug” if the drug is patented. If you manage to patent a “garlic extract pill” and then do a series clinical studies that demonstrate it helps people with disease X, a statistically significant percentage of the time (note statistically significant can be a very small percentage), then you can PAY THE FDA a lot of money and get it approved as a drug. Once you have it approved as a drug, you can label it as a drug. If your patented recipe is dangerous to the health of normal people, when taken in large quantities, it might become a “prescription drug”.</div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
The FDA will not accept any scientific evidence for a product that is not marketed with a claim. In similar logic, the EEU drug approval agency was asked if they would approve 'water' as a drug, because they could claim it prevents the disease 'dehydration'. The response was basically "<i>We only evaluate claims when the paperwork is completed. (and the fees are paid)</i>" eg. Until someone prepares marketing material for a product, with a claim that it "prevents dehydration", the claim will not be evaluated. </div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
The FDA does not care if you say “an apple a day keeps the doctor away”. They don’t care if it’s true or false. It’s not a “health claim” in FDA-speak. But if you print a message on your apple boxes that says “apples help treat patients with disease X”, they care, and they will ask for proof, or crack down and possibly confiscate your packaging, and your “dangerous product” as well.</div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; padding: 0px;">
to your health, tracy<br />
Founder: Healthicine</div>
Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08253567439934890622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-23703590704561302422017-08-24T09:16:00.000-07:002017-09-27T20:15:20.353-07:00The Old Erebus (The New Colossus Revised for the current times)<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 376px;">
<colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 13750; mso-width-source: userset; width: 282pt;" width="376"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl64" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt; width: 282pt;" width="376"><h3>
<b>The Old
Erebus</b></h3>
</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><b>But, like the depraved giant
of Greek fame,</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><b>With conquering whims that
tweet from hand to hand;</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><b>Here at our white-washed,
prison wall shall guard</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><b>A weighty no-man with a lurch,
whose lame</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><b>Excuses rain like lightning,
and his name</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><b>Hater of Others. From his
bacon-hand</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><b>Grows mouth-wide sneer; his
blind eyes command</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><b>The liar. Rigged ardor, that
gives citizens blame.</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><b>“Keep, lands ancient, your
pomp storied!” cries he</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><b>With widened lips. “Send not
your tired, your poor,</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><b>Your huddled masses yearning
to breathe free,</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><b>The wretched refuse of my
egoistic snore.</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><b>Send those, the homeless,
tempest-tossed home,</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td class="xl63" height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;"><b>or to light my lamp beside the
golden door!”</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY4AKfXAtOaqZY8wlIqQPVoHu95HBqc5NjpMAxLUX3JxwxGQv9OxY3UixN6rg9exn14actBj-QSv6rxFIMsj7TbUDzCd5evGaplUrDavf6NEBfzQIJqXc_fGrVJpkPpiKLIvqeWw-ZanY/s1600/TheNewColossus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="595" data-original-width="907" height="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY4AKfXAtOaqZY8wlIqQPVoHu95HBqc5NjpMAxLUX3JxwxGQv9OxY3UixN6rg9exn14actBj-QSv6rxFIMsj7TbUDzCd5evGaplUrDavf6NEBfzQIJqXc_fGrVJpkPpiKLIvqeWw-ZanY/s400/TheNewColossus.jpg" width="400" /></a><b><br /></b>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> © Tracy Kolenchuk, <a href="http://healthicine.org/" target="_blank">Healthicine</a></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08253567439934890622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-75719195316781832712017-07-25T08:29:00.002-07:002017-07-25T08:29:42.529-07:00How to Pull your Cat's Tail<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmxWlptJE2MHXLxXm_0Lj6NIHz7Q9wncFgWIiBKH-YUY63inOIs6KJut-jVwxjZMgBBNNbLuMLAS5YdUddirrRq6otiXqRTTRXQA56bGo44FpOc3xa2CJjTh-lMVmmlbGG8wE0d7tuyOo/s1600/GreenChristmas-f-pullTail.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="502" data-original-width="1024" height="156" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmxWlptJE2MHXLxXm_0Lj6NIHz7Q9wncFgWIiBKH-YUY63inOIs6KJut-jVwxjZMgBBNNbLuMLAS5YdUddirrRq6otiXqRTTRXQA56bGo44FpOc3xa2CJjTh-lMVmmlbGG8wE0d7tuyOo/s320/GreenChristmas-f-pullTail.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
A few days ago, I was wandering around a used bookstore, one with cats on staff, perhaps to calm the customers into reading. <br />
<br />
As I knelt down to browse a lower shelf, the local grey, one I'm very familiar with, walked between me and the shelf. I reached out and scratched his head, then under the chin. As he passed by, I rubbed his back and then wrapped my fingers around his tail to give him a nice back stretch. He pulled slowly and when the tail released, he came back for another round. We had met before. I rubbed under his chin, but he seemed distracted by that. As he passed, I touched his back and again took his tail. He pulled slowly, stretching his back, and then, just as his tail released, a staff member came out of an office door.<br />
<br />
"<i>Please don't pull the cat's tail!</i>" she admonished.<br />
<br />To be honest, I was at a loss for words. There was little to be said. She has three cats, but evidently never pulls their tails. Pity. I was guilty. The cat, as cats do, strolled away unaware of any issue. I bought a book and left. And then I wondered... how many people don't know how to pull a cat's tail?<br />
<br />
<h2>
Cats vs Dogs </h2>
Maybe you've seen the internet image of How to Pet a Dog - everywhere is good, and How to Pet a Cat - lots of forbidden territory. It's cute image, but not very accurate.<br />
<br />
Not every dog likes to be touched, and not every dog likes to be touched everywhere. Dogs can be dangerous. When in Peru, I walk a Dalmatian, every day. He's not fond of touch - and deaf in one ear. If I touch his left ear, he will snap, bark, and bite. Even if I only pretend to touch that ear - he will snap. The other ear? No problem.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Dogs are Babies, Children</h3>
<br />
Although many dogs love attention, love to be touched, even carried, every dog is in individual. Dogs are social animals. Domesticated dogs are babies, or immature children, never attaining adulthood, but even children can be touchy, angry, or dangerous.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Cats are Adults</h3>
<br />
Cats, on the other hand, are independent adult animals, with independent adult behaviors. Cat's don't care if you care about them. They have little desire to please you, unless it brings them some reward. For dogs, attention is their reward. Your cat? meh.<br />
<br />
Cats like to be touched, rubbed, caressed, on their own terms. Cats will snuggle up, even rub, lick, or bite your hand it they want to be petted. But sometimes, when you reach to pet them - they change their minds and walk away. Sometimes, they decide to play - to attack your hand. Sometimes, they want you to pet them, but just so. And sometimes not. Cats have boundaries.<br />
<br />
As an adult, when a cat decides it's time to leave, to do something else, even to do nothing else, they go. Cats have boundaries. Attempting to pet them when they don't want to be petted, is crossing the boundary, and can lead to trouble. Cats have claws.<br />
<br />
Many cat's don't like people touching their tummy - ours is usually just fine with that, but she's been around us for 18 years.<br />
<br />
And then there's the tail.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The Tail of A Cat</h3>
A cat's tail is complex. It often seems the cat is not conscious of their tail. Most of the time, it follows them around. Sometimes it gets stuck in doorways, as the cat decides to go in, or out, or to take time to decide. <br />
<br />
When a cat is hunting, the tail is interesting. Maybe you seen the hunter's tail, flicking as the cat stalks a real or imaginary prey, and thought "doesn't that warn the prey?" There are several human attempts to explain this behavior - but the simplest is that it works. Somehow, it helps the cat to hunt.<br />
<br />
Cats, and tails, and children, on the other hand, don't mix well. Children see the cat, and would like to touch, hold, pet, eg. control, the cat. Cat's don't want to be controlled. They leave, and their tail trails behind. The child grabs the cat - by the tail of course, and a battle ensues.<br />
<br />
This is what we usually envision as "pulling the cat's tail".<br />
<br />
It leaves the impression that cat's don't like to have their tails pulled. Cats love having their tails pulled - on their own terms. They just don't want to be pulled by their tails. That's crossing their boundary - unless they decide to like it, which sometimes they do.<br />
<h2>
How to Pet a Cat's Tail</h2>
When you pet a cat along the back, they raise up their hind legs, to rub the tailbone against your hand. Often the cat will circle back for more. The spine, the tail is wanting attention.<br />
<br />
It's easy to pet a cat. It's harder to pet the cat's tail. But you can learn. It's the first step to successfully pulling a cat's tail. Pet the cat's back and as it passes by, or lies there, or does whatever your cat does, extend the petting action to the tail. Almost all cats cat will tolerate this. Most will enjoy and circle back for more. Or just purr....<br />
<h2>
How to Pull a Cat's Tail</h2>
Once you learn to pet the cat's tail, you can advance to the next stage. As the cat passes under your hand, you gently hold the tail - and let the cat pull. Now you are petting the entire tail, not just the top. Your cat might arch their back in satisfaction, and circle back for more, or leave. Cats are like that.<br />
<br />
As you build confidence in yourself, and in your cat, you can grasp tighter. As your grasp tightens, the petting action becomes a massage, stretching the cat's spine. Cats quickly learn to love this, even more than being petted. And then they get tired of it. And go away.<br />
<h3>
Caution</h3>
If the cat has spent some time with young children, any attempt to grab the tail can bring back bad memories - and the cat might fight or flee. If you try too hard, the cat will take offence. If you relax, the most cats can learn to relax as well.<br />
<h2>
Pulling Cat's Tails, for the Health of It</h2>
I practice pulling tails on many cats, and I often see cats in conflict. Some love it. Some want to flee, to protect themselves, but they want their back rubbed, or stretched, by having their tail pulled. They move away, and circle back for more. Gradually, as they learn to trust. I am not pulling them by their tail. They are pulling. They are in charge, they enjoy the stretch. If they pull a bit harder, in enjoyment, I help them. If they show distress, I release and they escape. They understand that they are in control. Often, they come back.<br />
<br />
Cats like to be in control. Cat's like to have their back stretched. But they can't do it themselves. As they learn, and their 'person' learns, both can enjoy a new perspective on "how to pull a cat's tail", for the health of it.<br />
<br />
I know one cat, a large male, that loves, loves, loves to have his tail pulled. He lets me grasp his tail and then pulls himself away by his claws on the carpet. The first day we first met, his owner exclaimed in total surprise - "He likes having his tail pulled?", watching him coming back for more, and more, and more. Rubbing up against my leg, purring loudly.<br />
<br />
The cat in the bookstore? It enjoyed having it's tail pulled. It wasn't scared, or offended. I crossed no cat boundaries. The boundary I crossed was in the perception of the clerk. The cat returned for a second round, and then - off to attend to other cat matters. Cats are independent.<br />
<br />
to your health, tracy<br />
gentle cat-tail-pullerTracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08253567439934890622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-33282217705373198302017-05-13T17:37:00.001-07:002017-05-13T17:46:05.978-07:00What is the Highest Form of Intelligence? <div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj6R6ng3rth7FrhY8WyD-w48LS_5H11uxCIi8YDLJch5uEVABKRmg8AtmQs9OZoDGxzmnOxbwlcIkUaxzmiM_NCkPoONLZcLdKZ4vh_nU7EJSl1o1XJN0yiSfxVl7UeN96sS6fMkK5ztc/s1600/BRAINFUL-Intelligence.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj6R6ng3rth7FrhY8WyD-w48LS_5H11uxCIi8YDLJch5uEVABKRmg8AtmQs9OZoDGxzmnOxbwlcIkUaxzmiM_NCkPoONLZcLdKZ4vh_nU7EJSl1o1XJN0yiSfxVl7UeN96sS6fMkK5ztc/s200/BRAINFUL-Intelligence.jpg" width="166" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">What is the highest form of intelligence? To find the 'highest form of intelligence', the place to start is the 'lowest form of intelligence', then work our way up
and see where it takes us. This exercise was started, very effectively,
by Frank T. Vertosick Jr. in the book, </span><b style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><i>The Genius Within:
Discovering the Intelligence of Every Living Thing</i></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px;">Unfortunately</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">, Vertosick stopped short of the goal, probably due to the common error in
scientific thinking - that we must separate 'science' from 'spirit'. </span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Intelligence comes from life. Rocks, planets, and even stars are not alive - they don't have any intelligence, nor any need for intelligence. They have no goals, no reason to develop or apply intelligence. The lowest form of intelligence resides in chemicals that learn to
cooperate to reproduce. Vertosick wrote "<i>When I speak of intelligence, I
mean the general ability to store past experiences and use that information to
solve future problems. I'm not limiting my discussion to human intelligence...
I call this 'brain chauvinism', and I will refute it by showing that all living
things -- even those entirely devoid of nervous systems -- can (and must) use
some sort of reason to survive... In other words, to be alive, one must think.</i>"<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Vertosick then goes on to explain the source of intelligence
"<i>This book looks at intelligence as an emergent property of large groups.
An emergent property is a property manifested by the whole group, even though
the same property isn't apparent in any of the individuals comprising the
group.... human intelligence is an emergent property of groups of nerve cells.
And immune intelligence is an emergent property of a group of immune cells,
cellular intelligence is an emergent property of a group of enzymes, and so
on.... Networks are the basis of living intelligence in all scales of life from
cell to ecosystem.</i>"<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">Vertosik missed a small point. It's not 'groups' that are intelligent, it's communities. Groups of rocks or groups of planets, or groups of stars have no need for intelligence. They do not act with intent, and do not benefit from any of their 'actions'. Communities, communities of individual entities that compete and cooperate, create intelligence. Communities of chemicals, that persist long enough to create communities of life, create intelligence.</span></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">Cooperation and competition are two sides of the coins of life, actions in a community. Like left and right, light and dark, inside and outside, each must exist for the other to exist. Community is a group of life entities acting as a group. Every community of cells is a community of cooperation and competition. Even actions that are taken in self-interest, often aid the community, if only by producing stronger siblings. Even actions that are intended to be cooperative, can be interpreted as self-interest, if only to ensure the health, life, and reproduction of your siblings. </span></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Genes and other genetic components network and compete and cooperate to create
the component of DNA, of viruses, and of life. This networking, competition, and cooperation
creates life, health, and intelligence from lower level components. These
form networks, or communities, with other active chemicals, enzymes, etc. which compete and cooperate to
create cells - which have a higher level of intelligence that simple genetic
components, viruses, etc.. </span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Cells compete and cooperate to create cell
masses and then tissues comprised of different cell types, that have intelligence
higher than any simple cell. Cell masses and tissues compete and cooperate to create a body, with limbs, bodily
organs, and organ systems through competition and cooperation that rises above the intelligence
of cells. The body develops sensory systems, that evolve into nervous systems -
an even higher level of intelligence. Nervous systems mass and compete and cooperate
to create brain components for vision, hearing, etc that are more sophisticated
in their ability to sense, to learn, to predict. Brain components compete and cooperate to create the mind, which rises above the body and learns to control
the body. A higher level of intelligence. </span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Vertosick stops here and does not proceed further up the hierarchy
in a comprehensive fashion. However, this hierarchy of life is also the
hierarchy of healthicine (<a href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/hierarchy-healthicine-history-exploration/">Hierarchy
of Healthicine- History and Exploration</a>), and we can use that model to rise
higher in the levels of intelligence. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Minds and spirits evolve together. Every mammal clearly has
'spirit', feeling and acting excited, depressed, happy, hungry, etc. at
different times. When we look closely, even a single cell has the spirit of life, and a community of cells has higher level spirits. As we climb the hierarchy of life, these feelings rise above the level of 'senses' and above the
simple functions of the mind - memory, calculation, etc. The spirit that emerges from mind components working together, competing and cooperating, creates a higher, more intelligent intelligence. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Above spirits, we have communities of people. Which would include
communities not just of body, not just of minds, but communities of spirits as
well. Clearly communities of people can remember more, and resolve
problems that single humans cannot resolve. We can write problems down,
and work at them over centuries, and solve them by
community cooperation and effort over time. History provides</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px;"> many examples of intelligence of communities operating over hundreds of years. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">The logical conclusion is that no human, no single being, not even any group of humans can attain the highest form of intelligence. </span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Now we can see the common thread. Communities of genetic
components create DNA and simple life forms like viruses. Communities of simple
life forms create cells. Communities of cells create tissues, which
create organs, and bodies, communities of organs and body parts create living
systems like our digestive systems, respiratory systems, hormonal systems,
immune systems, nervous systems and more. Communities of systems create more
and more complex, more and more intelligent bodies, which develop more complex,
more and more intelligent minds and spirits. Communities of individual bodies,
minds, and spirits cooperate to create The Beatles, Symphony Orchestras,
religions, and many more thing that no individual could create or be by
themselves. The intelligence of a city clearly rises above the intelligence of
individuals, solving memory and logical problems that individuals cannot solve
- even though it is not 'conscious' of its own intelligence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Of course not every group, or community, of people creates a
higher level of intelligence. A group can just as easily, perhaps easier,
create an unintelligent mob, that does really stupid things. These groups
too can exist over long periods of time - longer than any single lifetime. One
of the most important aspects of intelligence includes the ability to make
errors, and hopefully, eventually, to learn from those errors. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">The highest form of intelligence is also the lowest form of
intelligence. It is the intelligence of communities, knowingly, or unknowingly
cooperating and competing to create a new intelligence at a higher level. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">The highest form of intelligence is the <b>intelligence of
cooperation</b> <b>and competition </b>to attain goals that were not even seen as possible, or
useful, or anything, by the individual components that are creating it.<b> </b></span></i><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Thinking that some aspect
of human intelligence could be the 'highest form of intelligence' is simply, to
use the words of Vertosick "brain chauvinism". We are not as
intelligent as we think. We are only as intelligent as we can work together to
attain goals at levels higher than those of the individual.<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">to your health, tracy<br />Founder: Healthicine</span></span>Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08253567439934890622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-12865768378502301342017-05-05T06:40:00.002-07:002017-05-07T08:41:17.290-07:00Fake News Warning: Gluten Free Diet<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNJtvG0r60rvgeGqAWM5_z8biUWERf-m-6BZ30V2j4v6GvRzvulxZcEk6CC2HWGkmaW7pvr1mZv3A2rvRr3id1Jol90EHLMSVDpZZgNXku08e-Wjm0v8zkxcBdUrQvlrKpNdqm0D9wfGg/s1600/GlutenFree_FakeNews.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNJtvG0r60rvgeGqAWM5_z8biUWERf-m-6BZ30V2j4v6GvRzvulxZcEk6CC2HWGkmaW7pvr1mZv3A2rvRr3id1Jol90EHLMSVDpZZgNXku08e-Wjm0v8zkxcBdUrQvlrKpNdqm0D9wfGg/s320/GlutenFree_FakeNews.jpg" width="256" /></a></div>
The last few days we have seen a flurry of FAKE NEWS headlines about gluten free diets.<br />
<br />
FOX News: <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/2017/05/03/gluten-free-diet-may-raise-your-risk-heart-disease.html" target="_blank">A gluten-free diet may raise your risk of heart disease</a><br />
GLOBAL: <a href="http://globalnews.ca/news/3423845/going-gluten-free-to-ward-off-heart-disease-might-have-opposite-effect-study/" target="_blank">Going gluten-free to ward off heart disease might have opposite effect: study</a><br />
CBC: <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/gluten-free-diets-1.4096365" target="_blank">Healthy hearts: Gluten-free diets don't help people without celiac disease, study finds</a><br />
MedicalNews.Net: <a href="http://www.news-medical.net/news/20170503/Study-finds-no-link-between-gluten-intake-and-heart-disease-risk-in-people-without-celiac-disease.aspx" target="_blank">Study finds no link between gluten intake and heart disease risk in people without celiac disease</a><br />
Irish Mirror: <a href="http://www.irishmirror.ie/lifestyle/health/eating-gluten-free-diet-youre-10340709" target="_blank">Eating a gluten free diet when you're not coeliac could damage your health</a><br />
NEJM: <a href="http://www.jwatch.org/fw112836/2017/05/03/gluten-restricted-diets-seem-not-lower-coronary-risk?query=pfwTOC&jwd=000013542037&jspc=" target="_blank">(email teaser) Low-Gluten Diet Not Tied to Lower Coronary Risk. (article header) Gluten-Restricted Diets Seem Not to Lower Coronary Risk</a><br />
<br />
Are these reports fake news? Yes, every one of them. Let's check the facts.<br />
<a name='more'></a> All of the above reports, published on May 2 or May 3, 2017 refer to the same research study published in the BMJ. According to Wiki, "The BMJ is a weekly peer-reviewed medical journal. It is one of the world's oldest general medical journals. " The study comes with the tedious title: "<a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1892" target="_blank">Long term gluten consumption in adults without celiac disease and risk of coronary heart disease: prospective cohort study</a>".<br />
<br />
Incidentally, the study, published in the BMJ is free. You can click the link above, and read it yourself. Perhaps this, in itself, should be a warning that maybe some propaganda is being delivered? If you want to read the study "<a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4347" target="_blank">Celiac disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity</a>" on the BMJ, it will cost you $37. If you want to read "<a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/318/7200/1710" target="_blank">Gluten sensitivity: a many headed hydra</a>", same same, $37. Why is the latest research study 'free'? Does the BMJ believe this study is so important that it should be freely available?<br />
<br />
Let's take a look at the actual study, and the actual conclusions of the study. Then we can compare the study, and the study results, to the above 'news' reports to find the 'fake news'.<br />
<h2>
Long term gluten consumption in adults without celiac disease and risk of coronary heart disease: prospective cohort study: </h2>
<b>Objective</b> To examine the association of long term intake of gluten with the development of incident coronary heart disease. NOTE: <i>The objective was NOT to examine gluten free diets, and gluten free diets were not studied. </i><br />
<br />
<b>Participants:</b> (none actually). The study was research into data held in the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study collected between 1986 and 2010.<br />
<br />
Note: The title of the study is incorrect - should we call it 'fake news'? The title of the study says "<i>in adults without celiac disease</i>", but the participants data did not contain any information about celiac disease prior to 2014. The study data could not distinguish between participants with celiac disease, and participants without celiac disease - because the data was not collected. The people who reported celiac disease - in 2014 or later, were eliminated from the study - leaving only people of unknown status. There was no study of "<i>adults without celiac disease</i>".<br />
<i><br /></i>
<b>Exposure to Gluten:</b> Consumption of gluten, estimated from food frequency questionnaires. <i>Intentional gluten avoidance was not measured. Gluten free diets were not studied. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<b>Main outcome measure </b>Development of coronary heart disease (fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction). <i>Heart healthiness was not measured, only the incidence of serious heart failure.</i><br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion </b>Long term dietary intake of gluten was not associated with risk of coronary heart disease. <i>Not associated? But.. but... the news reports seem to say that gluten free diets are associated with heart disease? Seriously? What's going on?</i><br />
<h2>
The Fake News</h2>
The study did not end with the 'conclusion'. It ended with a couple of extra waffling sentences, added on to the end of the conclusion: "<i>However, the avoidance of gluten may result in reduced consumption of beneficial whole grains, which may affect cardiovascular risk. The promotion of gluten-free diets among people without celiac disease should not be encouraged.</i>"<br />
<br />
These sentences appear at the bottom of the study. You might think - if you don't read carefully, that these sentences are supported by the study. If you read the study carefully, you will find that AFTER the conclusion was found, after it was learned that "<i><b>Long term dietary intake of gluten was not associated with risk of coronary heart disease</b></i>", the researchers took an extra step, which they describe as follows:<br />
<br />
"<i>After adjustment for known risk factors, participants in the highest fifth of estimated gluten intake had a multivariable hazard ratio for coronary heart disease of 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.02; P for trend=0.29). After additional adjustment for intake of whole grains (leaving the remaining variance of gluten corresponding to refined grains), the multivariate hazard ratio was 1.00 (0.92 to 1.09; P for trend=0.77). In contrast, after additional adjustment for intake of refined grains (leaving the variance of gluten intake correlating with whole grain intake), estimated gluten consumption was associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease (multivariate hazard ratio 0.85, 0.77 to 0.93; P for trend=0.002).</i>"<br />
<br />
Seriously? I challenge any news writer, from the above news articles, to translate that into the standard English level of their readers (watchers, listeners, as the case may be). I won't try. I'm not interested.<br />
<h2>
There is no need to Understand the above paragraph </h2>
The research did not actually study anyone on a 'gluten free diet' except perhaps by accident. <br />
<br />
The research did not study any anyone on a gluten free diet - who has been diagnosed as celiac, or not, except perhaps by accident, because that data was not collected.<br />
<br />
The suggestion that "<i>promotion of gluten-free diets amoung people without celiac disease should not be encouraged</i>" is opinion, speculation, not supported by the research. It might be supported by complicated analysis of 30 year old data, that does not contain any direct information about gluten free diets, nor about celiac disease - in the data selected for the study.<br />
<br />
The statement that "<i>However, the avoidance of gluten may result in reduced consumption of beneficial whole grains, which may affect cardiovascular risk.</i>" is a hypothesis, not a conclusion. It is, perhaps, a basis for a new research study. One that actually studies people on a gluten free diet, people diagnosed with celiac disease, and compares them to people on a gluten free diet who have not been diagnosed with celiac disease. This study has not been done.<br />
<br />
However, if you read the fake news reports, you could easily believe that it has been done and the results are in, and the results are bad. <br />
<br />
That's fake news.<br />
<br />
If you are a news reporter looking for a story, you need to read fast. If you read quickly, and don't notice the weasel words '<i>however...</i>" followed by "<i>may result...</i>", followed by "<i>may affect...</i>" you might easily think that the study says:<br />
<br />
FOX News: A gluten-free diet may raise your risk of heart disease<br />
GLOBAL: Going gluten-free to ward off heart disease might have opposite effect: study<br />
CBC: Healthy hearts: Gluten-free diets don't help people without celiac disease, study finds<br />
MedicalNews.Net: Study finds no link between gluten intake and heart disease risk in people without celiac disease<br />
Irish Mirror: Eating a gluten free diet when you're not coeliac could damage your health<br />
NEJM: (email teaser) Low-Gluten Diet Not Tied to Lower Coronary Risk. (article header) Gluten-Restricted Diets Seem Not to Lower Coronary Risk<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It doesn't. Every one of the reports on FOX, Global, CBC, MedicalNews.net, the Irish Mirror - and I am certain many more - are based on a hypothesis published in the BMJ - that was not actually studied, and therefore not supported by the study quoted in the news reports. Apparently, fake news breeds more fake news. Are we surprised?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We've seen the fake news. Maybe it's time to look at the real news? Here's the real news.<br />
<br />
1. A group of researchers studied gluten consumption and medical data in the Nurse's Health Study, from a time period before celiac disease data was collected. They published a report concluding that "Long term dietary intake of gluten was not associated with risk of coronary heart disease". Participants who reported celiac disease (reported after 2014) were eliminated from the study.<br />
<br />
2. At the end of the report, the researchers published a hypothesis that however, maybe, maybe, a gluten free diet in people who are NOT diagnosed as celiac, could increase risk of heart disease. However no gluten free diets were studied.<br />
<br />
3. The researchers did not study any people with celiac disease. They did not study anyone without celiac disease. They deliberately eliminated people who were known to have celiac disease from the study. Who is left? People whose status is unknown. There is no evidence, other than statistical evidence, that any individual in the study does not have celiac disease.<br />
<br />
4. There was no attempt to measure the healthiness effects, positive or negative, related to consuming more or less gluten. The study focused attention on a specific set of diseases and ignored all other consequences.<br />
<br />
When we learn to study health, we will come closer to finding real news. Until then, fake news rules!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
to your health, tracy</div>
<div>
Founder: <a href="http://healthicine.org/" target="_blank">Healthicine.org </a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08253567439934890622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-254538463087869312017-04-07T06:19:00.004-07:002017-05-10T17:33:41.392-07:00Placebo Effect Ignorance<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-tzWYs_BrEzXiQi1TtivunCFiomJu6mJMV-YC7rvqUrRhv88TKRK7If_lcmGKqcoWm0ZFaW35B2nGQ1z6H7OaTbWwl8cg46SDTvxMpYipISedMn9daN5SaAVhvp9uJxqUImGBcC74SsA/s1600/Placebo_chante.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-tzWYs_BrEzXiQi1TtivunCFiomJu6mJMV-YC7rvqUrRhv88TKRK7If_lcmGKqcoWm0ZFaW35B2nGQ1z6H7OaTbWwl8cg46SDTvxMpYipISedMn9daN5SaAVhvp9uJxqUImGBcC74SsA/s320/Placebo_chante.jpg" width="283" /></a></div>
I was recently asked this question on Quora: "What is the true impact of placebo effect on science?" My answer:<br />
<br />
<b>Ignorance.</b> The true effect, at present, of placebo effect on science is ignorance. Ignorance of cause, ignorance of consequences.<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">I am talking about the actual impact of placebo effect on
science, and doing so in the hope that someday we can change that effect to
something as powerful and useful as placebo effect actually is.</span><br />
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">First, we need to clearly define some terms. I'll use Webster's.
It's a a good place to start. Placebo effects don't “work”. We know that placebos work. But the question
is about placebo effects, not placebos.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Webster's defines “placebo effect” as “<i><b>improvement in the
condition of a patient that occurs in response to treatment but cannot be
considered due to the specific treatment used</b></i>”. Placebo effects are real
positive effects that are not caused by the treatment. Therefore, by </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">definition</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">, placebos DO NOT cause placebo effects. This is a common
misconception. Oxford's dictionary makes this clear, but then heads over to the
“ignorance” position.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Oxford's </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">definition</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> of placebo effect “<i><b>A beneficial effect
produced by a placebo drug or treatment, which cannot be attributed to the
properties of the placebo itself</b></i>”. Correct. But then Oxford cites the “common
sense knowledge” (AKA ignorance), finishing their </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">definition</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> with nonsense “<i><b>
and must therefore be due to the patient's belief in that treatment</b></i>”.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">This is the common nonsense, and it leads to ignorance of cause.
Let's be clear:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">1. every positive effect has a cause - by definition.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">2. Placebo effects are effects where we do not know the cause, <br />3. Placebo effects are effects where we believe we know what DID NOT cause the effect.</span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">When we assume that the effect is “due to the patient's belief in
that treatment” it's easy to ignore the cause and ignore, to not study, the
effect. Ignorance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">In actual fact, this creates two problems. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">First of all, if the effect is NOT caused by “the patient's
belief”, we cannot find the true cause, because we are not searching for the
true cause, we are ignoring it. Ignorance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Secondly, if the effect IS CAUSED by the patient's belief in the
treatment, then things get really complicated. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">For example, we might try to study how to create or induce the
“placebo effect”. But there's a problem. If we can create or increase the
patient's belief in the treatment, and our actions cause an improvement in the
patient's condition, It's NOT placebo effect any more. It's a real effect, caused by a
deliberate action, caused by a real treatment technique. Beneficial, yes.
Placebo effect? No.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Also, if we try to induce placebo effect, by increasing the
patient's belief in the treatment, then we assume the improvemets are caused
by the “placebo” action. This results in dismissal of other potential causes,
because we can easily attribute all effects to “placebo effect”. Ignorance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">We need to study every case of placebo effect to find the real
causes. Dismissing placebo effect as “caused by the patient's belief in the
treatment” is ignorance of other possibilities. There are always lots of other
possibilities. Patients are living breathing entities. Their health, their
bodies, minds, spirits, and communities are all taking actions to fight the
illness. Making the assumption that all of those effects have a single cause,
the patient's belief, is simple ignorance of the complex reality. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">If we are to understand placebo effects we need to study every
case, not dismiss "placebo effects" as “all in the mind”. Every placebo effect is a real
effect, with a real cause. Assuming the cause is ALL in the mind of the
patient is ignorance of other causes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">When science studies every placebo effect to find every cause, we
will learn more about real treatments, real causes, and real effects.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">But today, we deliberately design “<i>double blind placebo controlled
clinical studies</i>” to IGNORE placebo effect. Nonsense. Ignorance. That is the
current impact of placebo effect on science. It's time for a change.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">To your health, tracy<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Founder: Healthicine<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: 18.75pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 18.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">tracy<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08253567439934890622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-72787423225567428492017-03-30T18:38:00.004-07:002017-05-07T08:22:51.587-07:00When Doctors hate Doctors We all Lose Health<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv0piTd-revCDw0sAsfX9Tdnbb2Lsaq-hpeE2cisfOVLCp3HECBStyyq6JFuD_WrYwwBXxKyeemz7AoGaimOYlP17duaur77x8ai7sPxujWMhuPeMibYeU4mx_-LUSsoR_SaIM3ob-DBg/s1600/FracturedMedicineDOCTOR2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv0piTd-revCDw0sAsfX9Tdnbb2Lsaq-hpeE2cisfOVLCp3HECBStyyq6JFuD_WrYwwBXxKyeemz7AoGaimOYlP17duaur77x8ai7sPxujWMhuPeMibYeU4mx_-LUSsoR_SaIM3ob-DBg/s320/FracturedMedicineDOCTOR2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Medicine is broken. Fractured. We need medicine based on love, on caring, on helping each other. Instead, much of modern medicine is based not just on competition, but on hatred.<br />
<br />
Of course it's not everyone, and for the most part, I don't believe it's personal. Few, doctors, hate other types of doctors. <br />
<br />
It's the system. The so called 'conventional medicine' system. It's a paradigm that hates other paradigms.<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Imagine if, for example, civil engineers decided that they were the only real engineers, and all other engineers were not real engineers. And they told everyone that the bridges designed by other engineers were not real bridges, and the buildings designed by other engineers were not real buildings, that airplanes designed by other engineers were not real airplanes, and told everyone that architectural engineers cannot be trusted, because - after all - they are not real engineers. It would be ridiculous. But in medicine, this type of nonsense is commonplace.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Maybe you've heard a story like this. Maybe you've experienced a story like this:<br />
<br />
Dakota, visits a doctor with a problem that's been bothering them for some time. Dakota has some symptoms, but no idea what caused them, not sure when they started or what might be. The doctor gave a diagnosis, a name for their disease, and a prescription for a medicine. The medicine is a treatment - the word 'cure' is not mentioned, or maybe the doctor says "<em style="border: none; line-height: 1.5;">there is no cure</em>". The doctor says "<em style="border: none; line-height: 1.5;">take this for a while, and we'll see what happens</em>". The medicine is a symptomicine. It helps the Dakota feel better, but cannot cure. <a data-mce-href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/medicine-symptomicine/" href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/medicine-symptomicine/" style="color: #743399; line-height: 1.5;" target="_blank">Most medicines are symptomicines</a>, working well for illnesses that pass with time, but not so well for illnesses that persist. Symptomicines make you feel better, as your illness progresses. Dakota takes the medicine, and feels better, but there is little change. Gradually, the problem gets worse, and the dose is increased. Dakota begins to notice some effects.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
So. Dakota visits an alternative medical practitioner, maybe a chiropractor, or an osteopath, or a homeopath, or a naturopath, or a traditional Chinese medicine practitioner, or an Ayurveda doctor. The medical practitioner recommends a different treatment, and in a short time, they are cured. The disease disappears completely.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
What does 'medicine', the study of medicine do? How does the science of medicine learn from this experience? It simply does not. Modern medicine ignores cures. Cures are not documented, not counted. There are no statistics for cures. When Dakota goes back to the first doctor, the response is '<em style="border: none; line-height: 1.5;">interesting</em>'. But nothing more. Perhaps an additional comment of "<em style="border: none; line-height: 1.5;">maybe it's just in </em><i style="border: none; line-height: 1.5;">remission</i>". Modern medicine has serious challenges differentiating between remission and cure.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Whether Dakota is cured by a Traditional Chinese Medicine doctor, or a chiropractor, or a homeopath, or a naturopath, or a hand waving mystic - nobody cares. Even when cured by a conventional doctor - if the disease was not caused by a parasite - Dakota's cure is not recognized, not counted. If Dakota is cured by a homeopath - almost no one will believe it. If cured by a TCM, a Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioner, Dakota might tell all of your friends. But if the original doctor is not interested. Some doctors might be less than interested, they might be hostile. If Dakota was cured by a chiropractor, many friends - some of them doctors, will tell stories about cures by chiropractors, and about problems as well. But professionally, no conventional doctor will investigate or try to learn - much less to teach their profession, about Dakota's cure. If cured by healing touch, Dakota's cure will be dismissed as 'placebo effect'. If cured by a shamanic medicine, modern medicine might attempt to find the medicine used, and patent it - but mostly it will be ignored. If cured by a naturopath, no one but Dakota's close friends will believe it. If cured by an osteopath, even Dakota's doctor might grudgingly respect the cure, but will not investigate. Professional medical associations don't hate osteopaths, they just ignore them, and their cures as well.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Medicine is fractured. Modern medicine often fails to cure, and ignores cures when they occur. It's actually worse than that. Modern medicine (although maybe not your doctor) demonizes other practices of medicine - more so when they cure, because <a data-mce-href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/forbidden-word-modern-medicine/" href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/forbidden-word-modern-medicine/" style="color: #743399; line-height: 1.5;" target="_blank">modern medicine fears cures. The word cure is often forbidden</a>.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
There are entire communities of 'alternative medicine' bashers, who dedicate their time to dismissing entire medical systems, including any cures they produce. Some call themselves 'quack watchers'. They have a 'quack detector'. Like the child with a hammer - to whom everything looks like a nail. To a quack watcher - every alternative treatment and every cure looks like a quack treatment or a quack cure.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Do chiropractors cure patients? It's not hard to find a patient who claims to have been cured by a chiropractor. It's also easy to find doctors who hate chiropractors. Do homeopaths cure patients? Ditto. Do shaman's cure patients? "<em style="border: none; line-height: 1.5;">do you really want to risk your health to a witch doctor?</em>"</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Of the many schools of medicine, only two make significant use of the word 'cure'. <a data-mce-href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/disappearance-cure/" href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/disappearance-cure/" style="color: #743399; line-height: 1.5;" target="_blank">Many current conventional medical dictionaries do not contain the words 'cure, cures, cured, nor incurable'. </a> Chiropractic was developed on a theory of cause and cure: that manual manipulation of the spine can cure disease. But I don't think many chiropractors today take this theory literally. It's simplistic to the point of nonsense - even though in some cases it does produce cures. Homeopathy has a different theory, that "like cures like", that medicines that cause similar symptoms, can bring about cures. It's pure nonsense. But there's worse nonsense. Conventional medicine pays so little attention to the word 'cure' that there is no serious challenge to that basic theory of homeopathy. Instead, arguments against and studies of homeopathy are all about the dose, not the results.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Homeopathy is probably the most extreme example of our fractured medical system. Many homeopathic medicines, contain, in theory, NO ACTIVE INGREDIENTS. But sometimes homeopathic treatments succeed, after conventional medical treatments have failed. Maybe you've heard of meta-studies 'proving' that homeopathy doesn't work? Look closer. They're structured nonsense. Studies of specific homeopathic medicines, in clinical study settings, with specific medical conditions. No one dares to test 'homeopathy' as a medical system - to understand when and how it produces positive or negative results or cures. Nobody cares about cures. No conventional doctor, no real medical scientist or researcher wants to understand the truths of homeopathy. Cures are dismissed as 'placebo effects'. But no medical scientist or researcher works to understand placebo effects either. "Placebo effects" is a phrase used to dismiss confusing results, not to understand them.</div>
<h2 style="font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 1.8em; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">
Two Homeopathy Clinical Studies:</h2>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
In 1966 the clinical study “<a data-mce-href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8993956" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8993956" style="color: #743399; line-height: 1.5;" target="_blank">Homoeopathic versus placebo therapy of children with warts on the hands: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial.</a>” tested the application of a homeopathic medicine against a placebo, in the treatment of warts. It found that, with regards to symptoms – homeopathic medicines worked slightly better than a placebo. Nine patients benefited from the homeopathic medicine, seven from the placebo. The study concluded: “There was no apparent difference between the effects of homeopathic therapy and placebo in children with common warts under the conditions of this study.” But the conclusion was marred a bit by the fact that <strong style="color: black; line-height: 1.5;">the homeopathic treatment cured</strong><strong style="color: black; line-height: 1.5;"> 20% of the patients warts. The placebo cured 3.3 percent. </strong>According to medical science and statistics, the homeopathic medicine performed 'no better than a placebo'. Cures were ignored. Cure ignorance.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Thirty-two years later, in 1998, an almost identical study “<a data-mce-href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9828870" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9828870" style="color: #743399; line-height: 1.5;" target="_blank">A double-blind, controlled clinical trial of homeopathy and an analysis of lunar phases and postoperative outcome.</a>” was completed. The wart portion repeated the 1966 study almost exactly. There were the exact same number of participants and with regards as to symptoms – the exact same result. Homeopathic medicines produced shrinkage in nine of the patients, and the placebo produced shrinkage in seven of the patients. The homeopathic medicine performed slightly better than the placebo – in theory, no statistical difference. <strong style="color: black; line-height: 1.5;">There was one significant difference between the two studies. The second study did not measure, did not count ‘cured’. </strong>The study parameters, apparently, did not include testing for cures. Cure ignorance enhanced, ensured consistent conclusions.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<a data-mce-href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/disappearance-cure/" href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/disappearance-cure/" style="color: #743399; line-height: 1.5;" target="_blank">Why has modern medicine has struck 'cure' from the medical dictionary.</a> Why are cures are no longer relevant. Is it because the 'other' medical systems produce more cures than conventional medicine. Could it be that studies of 'cures' are embarrassing to the modern medical system?</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
What should the science of medicine do in the face of this evidence? Fess up? Attempt to understand? Work to help the patient better next time? Try to learn from the experience, and do better? Collaborate, to produce a better medical system?</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
All of the above and more.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
But what does conventional medicine do, when faced with a cure by a different medical paradigm? First, it pleads ignorance. After all, cured is not defined. Because cured is not defined, cured cannot be proven. There was no cure. Maybe it was just a remission. There is only 'anecdotal evidence'. Anecdotal evidence is a mantra of a fractured system, not an attempt to understand.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<strong style="color: black; line-height: 1.5;">Every cure is an anecdote. </strong>Every cure is anecdotal evidence. Cures are case studies, not clinical studies. The vast majority of clinical studies don't define cured, don't test for cured, and as a result, cannot find cures.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
The practices of modern medicine are fractured, adversarial, competitive and non-cooperative, neglecting and refusing to study and learn from the successes of others.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Actually, let's be honest, and grateful. Much of modern medicine works very well. Emergency medicine excels. If you have a medical emergency, you go the the emergency department. There are no '<em style="border: none; line-height: 1.5;">alternative medicine</em>' emergency departments. In a medical emergency, medicine steps up and takes responsibility (and check, cash, credit card, or medical insurance, of course).</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
But when you are just sick, and there is no emergency, good luck. Medical practice, with regards to non emergency medicine, has little science of cure, only science of 'treatment'. There is lip service to science. Clinical studies. But a close look at clinical studies reveals serious flaws. The main failure of clinical studies is not hidden, but not obvious. What is 'not present' in most clinical studies: the word <strong style="color: black; line-height: 1.5;">cure. </strong>Cure is only defined, in clinical studies, for diseases caused by parasites. Clinical studies for antibiotics, antifungals, and antiviral medicines can use the word 'cure'. But, all clinical studies for diseases caused by a 'not parasite' cannot search for cures.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Conventional medicines and medical treatments MUST be approved by the government, and the government requires proof of effectiveness via clinical studies. But clinical studies cannot cure most diseases - by definition, because cured is not defined. And modern medicine is not pursuing cures for diabetes, heart disease, obesity, arthritis, and more. Clinical studies don't measure cures, they measure 'effects on symptoms' - a euphemism for 'not cures'. Most studies comparing conventional medicines to alternative medicines can be reduced to "<em style="border: none; line-height: 1.5;">which medicine does not cure better</em>".</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Clinical studies for cancer use linguistic trickery to avoid this issue, with the phrase 'cure rate'. Cure rate is defined as surviving with your disease. There is no proof of cure, no test of cure, other than survival. If someone is cured of their cancer, there is no medical test to prove, nor to disprove the cure. What was previously counted as 'survival rate' has been renamed 'cure rate', because although 'cured' is not defined for cancer, 'cancer cure' is a huge fundraising mantra.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1511449570016796551" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a>Most medicines cannot cure. <a data-mce-href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/most-medicines-make-no-attempt-to-cure/" href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/most-medicines-make-no-attempt-to-cure/" style="color: #743399; line-height: 1.5;" target="_blank">Most medicines make no claim to cure. </a></div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
This is the fracture line in modern medicine. Cure.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Any medical technique that cures, or claims to cure, is considered illegitimate. Modern medicine is not interested in learning from other medical practices, even when they produce positive results, even when they cure.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
We need modern medicine to work for us all, for our health, not for themselves. We need a modern medicine that recognizes and celebrates successes by ALL medical practitioners celebrates successes of all patients, for all diseases. We need a medical system that measures cures, and gives credit for cures, irregardless of which type of doctor or medical system the cures come from.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
to your health, tracy<br />
Founder: Healthicine</div>
Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08253567439934890622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-27039682944632187352017-03-15T14:12:00.002-07:002020-02-16T05:32:02.963-08:00Is Wikipedia Fake News: Can Wikipedia be Cured?Is Wikipedia 'fake news'? Does Wikipedia contain 'fake news'? How would we know? Well, first of all, we need to understand the concept of fake news, and distinguish clearly between fake news and lies, truths, facts, non-facts, and bullshit. Perhaps we should begin with 'bullshit'. Harry Frankfurt's essay, "<a href="https://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf">On Bullshit</a>" explores that concept in detail, and also in a nutshell. "<i>Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without </i><i>knowing what he is talking about." </i>Frankfurt distinguishes clearly between lies - the presenter clearly does not believe what they are saying, and bullshit, where the speaker is simply talking about which they know little.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Frankfurt does not actually define 'facts' nor 'truth', although he does point out that "<i>It is impossible for someone to <b>lie</b> unless he thinks he knows the truth.</i>" and "<i>The bullshitter ... does not reject the </i><i>authority of the truth... He pays no attention to it at all... bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than </i><i>lies are.</i>" Frank does not make the mistake of assuming that 'facts' exist, instead commenting that "<i>One who is concerned to report or to conceal the facts assumes that there are indeed facts that are in some way both determinate and knowable.</i>" He ends with this phrase "<i>sincerity itself is bullshit</i>".<br />
<br />
Maybe facts simply do not exist. What exists are beliefs. Dead things have no facts. Live things have beliefs. Beliefs can be accepted, challenged, even changed.<br />
<br />
What we believe are facts are, in fact, simply what we believe. What we present as facts, might be what we believe - but they might not, as in this diagram.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrOc-VotAsy5ZSzY1DwqRou42_V0TyFeIn08fMny51jl2_cKgXQnR0WXbur_SInVe5x_A38WE_oC7EcmGEGfdTOSvoUn4aeaGDFqxJ0i0tCH2ZDT7dlAFVZB5OTpHhPL02lKJLE0maKMI/s1600/FakeNews2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="128" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrOc-VotAsy5ZSzY1DwqRou42_V0TyFeIn08fMny51jl2_cKgXQnR0WXbur_SInVe5x_A38WE_oC7EcmGEGfdTOSvoUn4aeaGDFqxJ0i0tCH2ZDT7dlAFVZB5OTpHhPL02lKJLE0maKMI/s400/FakeNews2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Truths are what we believe. We speak truths when we speak what we believe. Everyone has their own truths, which can change over time. Lies are things we say that contradict what we believe. Lies are opportunistic, they change according to current situations. Bullshit is what we present as truth, when we have a need to extend our speech beyond our knowledge, beyond our current beliefs. When we bullshit, we sometimes know we are 'stretching the truth', but we don't consider it lying. Facts are irrelevant, not existing independent of belief.<br />
<br />
But none of this is news. <br />
<br />
News only exists when someone else reports what happened, or what was said.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia, for example, does not want writers who tell us what they believe. Wikipedia wants references. Wikipedia wants to know what someone in authority said, and who they are, and when and where they said it. Note: Wikipedia does not care if the authority was stating their truths, their lies, or simply bullshitting. It's not considered important. Wikipedia is based entirely on news. Who said what, where and when. However, unlike many news sources, Wikipedia ignores 'why'.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia is a news source, old news and new news. But is it fake news? Does Wikipedia contain fake news? What is fake news? Well, we can ask Wikipedia, and read that "<i>Fake news is a type of hoax or deliberate spread of misinformation, be it via the traditional news media or via social media, with the intent to mislead in order to gain financially or politically.</i>" That's one definition. But it's not a particularly good one. Fake news, according to Wikipedia is simply a lie, a deliberate, known untruth.<br />
<br />
Much of the fake news currently on display is outside of the definitions of truths, lies and bullshit. The fake news stories that made headlines, that drove the news about fake news were not "with intent to mislead" in any real sense. In some cases, they are presented with intent to inform.<br />
<br />
Satire is fake news. It is a story, presented as fact, often written clearly as impossible or non-fact, but written to open our eyes. The purpose of satire is not to be funny, but to help us understand nonsense presented as truth.<br />
<br />
But there is another, important type of fake news. We might call it 'fake news'. Fake news is when someone writes a fake story, and presents it as news. But, we need to ask, what is news? <br />
<br />
News is simply what is presented to get money from advertisers. What advertisers will pay for, is news. If the advertisers won't pay for it, it won't sell, it's not news. No news source makes it's money from people buying the news. Money is made from advertisers. If you are not supported by advertisers - your news agency goes broke.<br />
<br />
A 'fake news website' is a site that creates nonsense news to attract hits and sell advertising. In many cases, the fake news authors don't distinguish at all between truths, lies, and bullshit - because they simply don't care. Many fake news websites only care about advertising and will publish anything they believe will bring clicks, possibly go viral, and make lots of money.<br />
<br />
There are, however, other fake news websites, that actually care about their content. There is, like the gradient between truth, bullshit, and lies, a slightly different gradient for 'fake news reporters'.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKMGCX0kaUs0K0GAqAr4lcoaA5TEnJENxiqDaC_I7fMnhGjv_tHdGN9mt7YL5QfURXroUYmG7PzeM5YWv6BIQjplOVNDR-ZYN8vWDybmYYluesNCrU7t-wBBXkm3NLwqkznwnoh0rPXwQ/s1600/FakeNews3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="165" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKMGCX0kaUs0K0GAqAr4lcoaA5TEnJENxiqDaC_I7fMnhGjv_tHdGN9mt7YL5QfURXroUYmG7PzeM5YWv6BIQjplOVNDR-ZYN8vWDybmYYluesNCrU7t-wBBXkm3NLwqkznwnoh0rPXwQ/s400/FakeNews3.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Viewing the diagram above, it's not hard to realize that ALL news is, to a certain extent, 'fake news'. The news we get is deliberately written to sell ads. If it does not sell ads, it's not news - except for the middle group, which are written to spread lies, and uses the news platform to present the fake news. On the far right, we have nonsense news stories, written as clickbait, to sell advertising.<br />
<br />
Where does satire fit into this diagram? In the middle. Satire contains deliberate lies, ostensibly to make us aware of the truth. But satire, in order to sell, in order to be successful, must sell their lies well.<br />
<br />
Is Wikipedia 'fake news'? Wikipedia has no advertising. Does that make it exempt from fake news? Actually, no. Wikipedia is written by 'well meaning' people, who want to sell their truths. But there's a problem. Most Wikipedia authors are simply not experts in what they write. They may be experts in research, or in writing, but generally they are not experts in the topics they write about. How do we know this? It's actually against Wikipedia policy for an expert to write in their field of expertise. To quote Wikipedia, "<i>Wikipedia articles must not contain original research (OR).... The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed.</i>"<br />
<br />
Is Wikipedia bullshit? No. But it certainly contains bullshit. For one, a "<i>reliable, published source</i>" is not well defined. Anyone might claim to quote a reliable published source - and anyone else might claim it is not a reliable published source. Reliable publishers have been shown, many times over, to have published nonsense - aka bullshit.<br />
<br />
Here, I offer evidence. I have chosen a single Wikipedia article, to demonstrate the fake news, and bullshit potential present in Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
<h2>
CURE</h2>
<br />
Wikipedia has an entry for cure. It has been entered and updated by hundreds of well meaning volunteers - and many interested parties. It might be updated again several times by the time you read this post. But with this entry, CURE, Wikipedia faces a simple problem. There are no experts on 'cure'. None. There are doctors who attempt to cure, and sometimes succeed. There are many people looking for cures, fund raising for cures, testing products and techniques as cures, and even many people finding cures, but there is not a single expert on the concept of cure.<br />
<br />
Medical reference books, for the most part, do not define cure. MERCK, Lange's, and Harrison's treatment guidelines do not define cure and do not use the word cure consistently. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency that approves medical cures, provides a glossary of terms, but it does not provide nor follow any definition of cure. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) also provides a glossary on their website - but it does not contain the words 'cure, cured, cures, nor incurable'. <a href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/disappearance-cure/">Most current medical dictionaries do not contain the word 'cure'</a>. When they do, the definition provided is simplistic to the point of nonsense. <a href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/most-medicines-make-no-attempt-to-cure/">Most medicines make no claim to cure</a>, and cannot cure any illness. <a href="http://healthicine.org/wordpress/diseases-cured-medicines/">Many illnesses can be cured, but not by medicines</a>.<br />
<br />
So what is a Wikipedia author to do? Make things up. Bullshit. And proof that the authors are making things up becomes more obvious, the closer you look.<br />
<br />
The first phrase in the current entry for 'cure' on Wikipedia says "<i><b>A cure is the end of a medical condition</b>;</i>". It sounds so simple, it must be obvious, right? But read further.<br />
<br />
Down the page, you will find the word 'incurable', and farther down, a link to a list of 'incurable diseases', Take note, the list of Incurable Diseases has re-appeared after being banished from Wikipedia because it contained too much nonsense. It's back, with more of the same.<br />
<br />
The list of incurable diseases says: "<i>Common Cold - The common cold is a disease that mutates too frequently, and is rarely fatal,[3] for a vaccine or cure to be created.[4]</i>". Now first of all, the use of English in this sentence is faulty to the point of nonsense if read literally. I think the author is trying to say "The common cold is a disease that mutates too frequently for a vaccine or cure to be created."<br />
<br />
The first reference [3] - Wikipedians love references, is to the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition, where it clearly states "<i>Most adult Americans suffer from one to four colds per year,</i>". but.... If an adult suffers more than one cold, certainly if they suffer more than one cold in a year - then the first cold, the first medical condition 'ended'. <br />
<br />
Which contradicts the list of incurable diseases. Either the list of incurable diseases is wrong, or the entry for cure is wrong, or they are both wrong. They can't both be right. Now, as a serious student of the word 'cure', I can and will untangle this, but Wikipedia does not publish OR.<br />
<br />
The second reference [4] is a link to a web article by "Business Insider", who describes themselves thus: "Business Insider is a fast-growing business site with deep financial, media, tech, and other industry verticals. ... the site is now the largest business news site on the web." Business Insider is NOT a medical authority, and certainly not an authority on cures, nor incurable diseases. The article does not state that the common cold is 'incurable', it does not use the word incurable at all, in fact, the web link to the article is "<i>/how-to-cure-a-cold</i>", although the article is titled "<i>Why We Don't Have A Cure For The Common Cold</i>". It is written by a journalist, an editor, not a doctor. But in Wikipedia, it's a '<i>reliable source</i>'. The author also confuses the concept of curing 'a cold' - which anyone can accomplish, with 'curing the disease we call the common cold', which no-one can accomplish.<br />
<br />
The first phrase, of the first sentence, of Wikipedia's entry on cure is contradicted by the rest of the article. Even though all are, in theory, supported by reliable references. But, let's read on. What else does the first sentence say? Well, actually, it goes on for quite a while, and seems to say quite a lot. <br />
<br />
The Wikipedia entry for cure continues with "<i>the substance or procedure that ends the medical condition, such as a medication, a surgical operation, a change in lifestyle, or even a philosophical mindset that helps end a person's sufferings; or the state of being healed, or cured.</i>"<br />
<br />
Seriously now. The first sentence in the Wikipedia entry for cure contains - (if my quick count is correct) forty-eight words. The first sentence of the Wikipedia definition for 'cure' contains two phrases, separated by a semicolon, which contradict each other. First, Wiki says that cure is "<i>the end of a medical condition</i>", and then it says cure is "<i>the substance or procedure that ends the medical condition</i>". The Wikipedia entry for 'cure' clearly mixes TWO different definitions of cure, and the article then mixes and matches the definitions, as various authors provide information from 'reliable sources'. Wikipedia does learn, and we might hope that someday there will be two or more entries for cure. But I'm not holding my breath.<br />
<br />
But wait, there's more. The sentence, again, is nonsense. It clearly says, for example, that a cure is "<i>or even a philosophical mindset that helps end a person's sufferings; or the state of being healed, or cured.</i>"<br />
<br />
Read that carefully. It says that 'a cure is.. something... that helps end the patient's sufferings'. Is a cure then end of a medical condition? Or is it just the end of their suffering?<br />
<br />
Or perhaps, cure is "<i>the state of being healed, or cured</i>"? Perfect. If we want to define 'cure', we just say that a cure is something that makes a patient 'cured' and a cure exists when the patient has been cured.<br />
<br />
I could go on. I often do. The Wikipedia entry for 'cure' is simplistic nonsense. Bullshit. The more the authors attempt to explain 'cure' the more tangle they become, in their own research and discussion. The Wiki article on 'cure' contains many statements that are simply wrong - at best, or lies at worst? Some examples:<br />
<br />
"<i>A remission is a temporary end to the medical signs and symptoms of an incurable disease.</i>"<br />
- Therefore, it's not possible to have a 'remission' unless the disease is incurable?<br />
<br />
"<i>Inherent in the idea of a cure is the permanent end to the specific instance of the disease.[4][5] When a person has the common cold, and then recovers from it, the person is said to be cured, even though the person might someday catch another cold</i>."<br />
- is the common cold curable? Or incurable?<br />
<br />
"<i>The proportion of people with a disease that are cured by a given treatment, called the cure fraction or cure rate is determined by comparing <b>disease-free survival</b> of treated people against a matched control group that never had the disease.[1]</i>"<br />
- duh. the common cold is 'cured' without a given treatment. So there is no cure rate for the common cold?<br />
- duh. The terms 'cure fraction' and 'cure rate' are terms used for 'incurable' diseases, like cancers, and other diseases where a cure cannot be proven. If a cure can be proven, there is no need for the concept of 'cure rate'. The link in the phrase 'disease free survival' does not take us to a page for disease free survival, instead we arrive at a page "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_rate">Survival Rate</a>", which begins with this phrase: "<i><b>This article has multiple issues</b></i>." Try to not be surprised.<br />
- cure rate does not measure the cure rate of the patient, nor the cure rate of the disease, it measures the cure rate of the treatment. It's nonsense. We might, for example, treat an abscessed tooth with a punch in the jaw and then measure the 'cure rate' of punching abscessed tooth patients in the jaw, by counting the patients whose abscess goes away and are still alive.<br />
<br />
The CURE entry goes on for some time discussing ''cure rate" as if it related to cure. Frankly, cure rate is simply a highly logical rationalization for 'we don't know if it was cured'', which might be more accurately named 'cure wait'. eg. Wait 5 years, count who is still alive and call that the 5 year cure wait.<br />
<br />
Near the bottom of the article, the Wiki CURE entry lists a single example of a '<i><b>cure</b></i>'. "<i>The most common example of a complete cure is a bacterial infection treated with antibiotics.</i>" However, the link to the article provided is broken. It appears that the article was removed, or replaced by an article that does not contain the quote. The revised article on the site linked, if it is the same article, now says "<i>Except for some infectious diseases that we cure with antibiotics, there are almost no diseases where we take them away and they never come back again.</i>" If we want to find real examples of cure, provided by trusted resources we can find them in two places. First, medical reference books like MERCK, Lange's and Harrison's generally avoid the word 'cure', but the do occasionally use the word cure, and document how to test for a cure. Second, although over 95 percent of medicines sold do not cure, and make no attempt to cure, there are a few medicines that clearly claim to 'cure' on the product label, and the claim has been approved by the US FDA.<br />
<br />
But that, in a nutshell is the first true statement about cure. The only diseases that can be 'cured' by modern medicines are diseases caused by parasites - bacteria, fungi, viruses, which are cured by medicines that kill the parasite. There are no other cures that are scientifically documented in modern medicine, because there are no other cures that can be tested by a scientific technique. Science fails to find cures - even when they are present. Science often claims there is no cure for the common cold, but recognizes that the common cold is cured by health, that healthy people suffer fewer colds, and cure them faster.<br />
<br />
There is another truth about cure. We can use it to find cures, to test cures, to document cures. But you won't find it in Wikipedia,because you can't find it in any medical reference book today, nor in any 'reliable published source'.<br />
<br />
<i><b>The cure for any illness is to address the cause. </b></i><br />
<i><b><br /></b></i>
<i><b>An illness is cured, when the cause has been successfully addressed. If the cause returns after a cure, like the cause of the common cold - the patient gets a new illness, not a return of the old illness. </b></i><br />
<br />
The Wikipedia article on cure? Simplistic. Self contradictory. Does it contain 'lies'? I have no evidence of lies. I cannot prove that any of the statements it contains are the opposite of the beliefs of the authors. But it is certainly fake news. Nonsense. Self contradictory. Bullshit, as defined in Harry Frankfurt's essay. People speaking or writing beyond their current knowledge.<br />
<br />
to your health, tracy<br />
<br />
Many of the concepts in this post are based on CURE as published in the book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Cure-Tracy-Kolenchuk-ebook/dp/B07M7KPPWQ/">The Elements of Cure. </a><br />
<br />
ps. There are many useful articles on Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia a lot to find information and sources. But I am always aware that much of Wikipedia is fake news written by non-experts, and that expert opinions, also known as "original research" is forbidden. Many posts on Wikipedia are similar to the article on 'cure' - I suspect some are worse.<br />
<br />
ps, ps. The Wikipedia article on CURE, as well as the list of INCURABLE DISEASES, make no useful distinction between a disease (a class of illnesses) an illness - a specific case of illness, and a medical condition - a much broader concept which includes things like broken arms, gunshot wounds and amputated legs. A disease - a general concept, cannot be cured. There are three clear and simple meanings of cure, which can be understood when we clarify what we are curing. An illness, a specific case of a disease, is cured by addressing the cause. A medical condition like broken arm can be healed - that's a type of cure. An amputated leg can be healed to close the wound, but not cured. Finally, we can cure disease before it happens, just as we can 'cure the cat of jumping up on the table'.Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08253567439934890622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-74255423719624323562017-03-09T14:57:00.003-08:002017-05-07T08:40:45.694-07:00The Death of Skepticism and The Rise of Fake NewsSkepticism is dead. Skepticism has been captured and converted to dogmatism. When I was young, I remember one of my cousins commenting "<i>You are such a skeptic.</i>" It made me feel proud to be skeptical, to search for the truth. But today's, skeptics don't search for the truth. Most claim to have found it.<br />
<br />
Skepticism has become the new religion. It's not a religion of analysis, nor thoughtfulness, nor of skepticism. It's the religion of dogma. Skepticism has been co-opted, in service of the prevailing dogma, the invisible dogma.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Perhaps, before we go any further, we might take a look at the dictionary definitions of skepticism and dogma, in the interest of knowing what the bleep we are talking about.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Skepticism Defined: </h3>
Webster's dictionary:<br />
1. a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something. "these claims were treated with skepticism"<br />
synonyms: doubt, doubtfulness, a pinch of salt;<br />
2.PHILOSOPHY - the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.<br />
<br />
Oxford's Dictionary:<br />
A sceptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something. ‘these claims were treated with scepticism’<br />
Philosophy :The theory that certain knowledge is impossible.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Dogma Defined:</h3>
<div>
Webster's: something held as an established opinion;<br />
Oxford Dictionary: A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.</div>
<br />
Punt SKEPTIC into google. Take a look at these 'so called' <i>skeptics</i>:<br />
<br />
Skeptic - <i>magazine and website 'The society is dedicated to educating the public about controversial claims.'</i>.<br />
Skepti-Forum '<i>Keeping the Science. Removing the Fiction'</i>.<br />
Skepticalscience -'<i>getting skeptical about global warming skepticism</i>.<br />
SkepticalaboutSkeptics: <i>'focuses on the people who fall in the dogmatic denier category because they present themselves as being the most truthful and objective, which they are not. '</i><br />
<br />
<h2>
Skeptic.com<br />=========</h2>
Let's look at "<a href="http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto/" target="_blank">Skeptic</a>" first, at their manifesto, which says "<i>Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed...</i>"<br />
<br />
Then, the hedging begins.. "<i>to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement." </i><br />
<br />
and continues to waffle with <i>"But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.</i>"<br />
<br />
Seriously? What is skepticism? Is it science? Is it "a method leading to provisional conclusions?" Is it the 'best results of science'? Or is it "all facts are provisional and subject to challenge"?<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What does Skeptic.com say about the Oxford dictionary definitions of skepticism?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"<i>this position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one (except a few confused solipsists who doubt even their own existence)</i>"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Skeptic.com clearly states in their manifesto, that<b> they don't believe skepticism is useful or productive</b>, and that any <b>real skeptics are "<i>a few confused solipsists</i>"</b> - and then they get the definition of solipsist wrong. Look it up if you like. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Skeptic.com and Skeptic magazine pretend to find truth through skepticism. They are not about doubt, <br />
they are about truth,<br />
their truth, and<br />
nothing but their truth -<br />
they present nothing but dogma, and call it skepticism.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Is Skeptic.com is actually 'skeptical'? Sorry. No. Skeptical.com has very specific positions on may controversial questions. They do not consider contrary positions valid or useful. They will not tolerate skepticism of their truths, their faith.They will NOT consider, support, nor publish contrary positions. Skeptic.com is simply not skeptical.</div>
<div>
<br />
Skepticism, by definition, is doubt, not truth. At Skeptic.com, skepticism is dead. </div>
<h2>
<a href="http://skeptiforum.net/">Skepti-Forum.net</a></h2>
<div>
How about skepti-forum.net. Are they skeptical? Sorry. No they are not. Skepti-Forum's tag line reads "Keeping the science. Removing the fictions." Skepti-forum is not skepticism, it's scientism: "<i>an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)</i>" (Webster's) - it's dogmatism. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Skepti-forum is a confusing array of discussions of various items, pretending to be skeptical, but frankly, losing it by supporting much nonsensical illogical thinking. One simple example: "<i>1,800 Studies Later, Scientists Conclude Homeopathy Doesn’t Work</i>". Fake and real skeptics often make the mistake of making negative claims, as if they were claims of fact - and this is a classic example. The research, 1800 studies, were studies of homeopathic medicines - not homeopathy. There were no studies of homeopathy. But the conclusion: homeopathy doesn't work. Sorry, Skepti-forum. You can't use studies of A to prove B. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: 24px; font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.skepticalscience.com/">SkepticalScience</a></span><br />
<br />
SkeptialScience is about global warming. Tagline: 'Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.' So does that make them skeptical, or skeptial-skeptical (is that a word). Does being skeptical about skeptics make you a skeptic?<br />
<br />
Does SkepticalScience provide skepticism? Nope. The sidebar on their website clearly states "MOST USED CLIMATE MYTHS: and what the science really says". Skeptical science is about science? The science they want to support.<br />
<br />
SkepticalScience is about the current scientific dogma, not about skepticism. It's about climate change. Maybe the science they present is correct and important - but it's not skepticism.<br />
<br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/">SkepticalAboutSkeptics</a></h2>
Skeptical about skeptics is an interesting site. They list their mission thus: "Skeptical About Skeptics is organized by The Association for Skeptical Investigation to promote genuine skepticism – the spirit of enquiry and doubt – within science. This includes an open-minded investigation of unexplained phenomena, a questioning of dogmatic assumptions, and a skeptical examination of the claims of self-proclaimed skeptics."<br />
<br />
They recognize - as I have pointed out, that most, perhaps all, of the websites claiming to be skeptic are actually dogmatic, not skeptical. But this still leaves the question, is SkepticalAboutSkeptics 'skeptical' themselves?<br />
<br />
If someone claims they are skeptical, and you believe they are not, does that make you skeptical?<br />
<br />
Is SkepticalAboutSkeptics dogmatic in their reviews of pseudo-skeptics? Or are they skeptical? Or are they simply analytical, logical, sensible? Are people who are analytical, logical, and sensible 'skeptical'?<br />
<br />
If you study some of the posts on SkepticalAboutSkeptics, you might gradually learn that SkepticalAboutSkeptics is simply not consistent. It is not consistent about research, it is not consistent about it's own mission, or goal - as stated on the ABOUT page: "<i>It is the goal of Skeptical About Skeptics to show you the reasons why you’re only getting one side of the story.</i>"<br />
<br />
Is that goal 'skeptical'? Frankly, no, it is not.<br />
<br />
If Skeptical about Skeptics is truly skeptical, they're not very good at it.<br />
=====================================================<br />
<br />
In conclusion:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #181818; font-family: "merriweather" , "georgia" , serif; font-size: 14px;">“War is peace. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #181818; font-family: "merriweather" , "georgia" , serif; font-size: 14px;">Freedom is slavery. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #181818; font-family: "merriweather" , "georgia" , serif; font-size: 14px;">Ignorance is strength.”</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #181818; font-family: "merriweather" , "georgia" , serif; font-size: 14px;"> - George Orwell, 1984</span><br />
<br />
Skeptics are not skeptical.<br />
Skepticism is dead.<br />
All news is fake.<br />
<a href="http://personalhealthfreedom.blogspot.pe/2016/09/all-your-truth-are-belong-to-us.html">All your truth are belong to us.</a><br />
<br />
to your health, tracy<br />
<br />
<br />Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08253567439934890622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-49465934471058871552017-02-12T05:02:00.000-08:002017-05-07T08:32:57.573-07:00Freedom: Why all Our Bosses are Idiots<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOv5t2M4npiiTqnOWw12M0aWl5G8RAID0pIjEI3v5nhiFtEU9MJb6Gbjm2IiAqsn6Lx_ZQb09UZZXtPpuhJcBS2hT-wHRh5LF-KGd2ceGUojvXKHb24ISNbFN0ta19TazKH2QtxAuup_s/s1600/Fleas.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOv5t2M4npiiTqnOWw12M0aWl5G8RAID0pIjEI3v5nhiFtEU9MJb6Gbjm2IiAqsn6Lx_ZQb09UZZXtPpuhJcBS2hT-wHRh5LF-KGd2ceGUojvXKHb24ISNbFN0ta19TazKH2QtxAuup_s/s320/Fleas.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Did you ever wonder why your boss is an idiot? I mean, really. It's a universal concept. Do only idiots become bosses? Are bosses more likely to become idiots because of the pressures make them stupid? What's going on?<br />
<br />
Actually, it's very, very complicated - but relatively easy to explain. Let's begin before the first boss, with the first sign of life.<br />
<br />
Dead things, after all, don't have bosses.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
A single cell. It is, in theory, totally independent. But theory doesn't last for long in practice. Cells grow. When they grow, eventually, they grow too big for their skin, and they explode. If the explosion is a failure, they die. But if it is a success - two cells emerge.<br />
<br />
Each cell is no longer just an individual - it is part of a community. Cells in a community can compete, or cooperate. Actually, they do both. Every cell is still an individual, so it competes. But every cell also benefits from cooperation. A single cell could not cooperate with anyone. Two cells can cooperate. Cooperation is a new force, that did not exist for a single cell. The force of a boss has emerged.<br />
<br />
What does this boss look like? Cooperation is an invisible boss. It does not need to tell anyone the rules - the rules lead to success. Going against the rules can lead to failure, or non-optimal success. Cells that cooperate do better, even when boss is invisible, they still follow the rules.<br />
<br />
Cooperation, the first boss, provides benefits for cells in the community. Cooperation is the community. If there is no cooperation, there is no community. When cooperation is strong, the community is strong. Even in a strong community - there exist strong individual cells, they can develop many strengths that isolated cells cannot practice. Often, just being in the community provides benefits to individuals. Cells benefit from the warmth of friendly cells. In some cases, an individual cell might do better by taking advantage of the community, breaking the rules, stealing pencils, or eating other cells, for example. But overall, the community rules, because the rules are the community.<br />
<br />
The cells are not aware of the boss, of the community. Each cell is only making its own decisions, looking out for number one. If the cells were asked, they might reply "<i>The boss (community) is an idiot.. It doesn't have any idea what's best for us cells. It's just looking out for itself.</i>" And it's true. But that's not all that's true. As the community becomes stronger, it forms a tissue - a higher level entity consisting of cells, in many cases, different types of cells working in cooperation.<br />
<br />
These communities of tissues can compete with each other. But, gradually, communities of tissues begin to cooperate as well. It happens entirely by accident, by coincidence - but it can lead to higher levels of success. When tissues cooperate, the result of this cooperation is a higher level entity, a higher level boss. The rules of this boss are rules that promote the community of tissues, which are communities of cells. Tissues, as bosses, have their own goals - higher level goals than single cells, or even communities of cells. Entities that are communities of tissues have still higher level goals.<br />
<br />
Communities of tissues are separate living entities like lichen, fungi, plants, etc. These living entities are their own boss. Their bodies are boss of their tissues, boss of their cells. The lower level tissue and cell entities have no idea. They are not conscious. Each is looking out for number one. The lichen, fungi, plant, makes its life decisions without any regard for it's cells, or it's tissues. Except that to succeed, they must succeed in some fashion.<br />
<br />
Communities of tissues can develop limbs and bodily organs. And then another layer emerges. Limbs cooperate, in animals - even in simple insects, to facilitate locomotion. Bodily organs cooperate to create a healthier, more flexible body. With more capabilities, more opportunities.<br />
<br />
The body is also an invisible boss. Some organs, some limbs, fight for more, for their tissues, grow larger - sometimes so large they put the entire entity in jeopardy. The cells want to grow. The tissues want to grow. The limbs want to grow. But the body needs control. The body needs to be the boss, or it might fail, and die, or fail to reproduce.<br />
<br />
We might imagine the cells in our skin, in our blood, in our liver, saying "if only the boss would X, we would be much better off" and believing that the boss would also be better off, if they were better off. Sometimes, they might be right - but often not. The objectives of cells, go grow and reproduce, are often in opposition with the objectives of tissues, of organs, of the body.<br />
<br />
As the hierarchy rises, each new layer creates a new set of abilities and objectives, that are not available to entities lower down in the hierarchy. It also creates new vision.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi78X-IKMBZHWuj_m71Nn9lm1xHZ6sFmZLIFDDe2vtc1V7EEZTx2iqKjb032zz1xyxd1fsTzs_Zitw7qqPiYts-JAh-nn6yotxDvmkeEXWPHmv2PegZTSEP3fVIFZL4LjWiBvd4QCzOdQw/s1600/BodyMindsSpiritsCommunities.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="309" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi78X-IKMBZHWuj_m71Nn9lm1xHZ6sFmZLIFDDe2vtc1V7EEZTx2iqKjb032zz1xyxd1fsTzs_Zitw7qqPiYts-JAh-nn6yotxDvmkeEXWPHmv2PegZTSEP3fVIFZL4LjWiBvd4QCzOdQw/s320/BodyMindsSpiritsCommunities.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
As humans, as individuals, we each have many of our own bosses. Are we controlled by our bodies?By our minds? By our spirits? By our desires? By our communities? When we look closely, we see the need for different individual bosses at different times. Our short term boss wants to get fed, to get sleep, to enjoy life. These bosses are often not logical - they are driven by feelings and emotions. Our medium term boss wants to get ahead, to keep fit, to gain control of our lives - this boss is our mind, but it is not always in charge. Sometimes our desires and feelings override our mind. Sometimes our mind overrides our feelings. Sometimes, our strength of spirit can put aside our feelings, and allow the mind to rule. Sometimes, a stone in our shoe takes control from the mind, the spirit, and the body - until we deal with it, and then we can pay attention to a different personal boss. Sometimes our family, or other community - the church, the government, the corporation, works as a boss, to change our plans or actions, to move us in a different direction.<br />
<br />
But in truth, as an individual ,we cannot be free without making decisions. We cannot be free without creating our own boss, and changing who is boss, and the decisions made, as circumstances change, and as our life and our viewpoints change.<br />
<br />
Now let's look at a human boss. A human boss is one step up the hierarchy from the individual. The human boss has a different viewpoint - different objectives. If the human boss makes the right decisions, sometimes those decisions will be good for the workers, but sometimes not so good. If the boss makes the wrong decisions, sometimes those decisions will be good for the workers, but sometimes - not so good. The workers are in a different position. They usually can't see or know the boss's goals, whether those goals are perfectly aligned with the entire organization, only a part of the organization, or not at all.<br />
<br />
There is another complicating factor. The boss is also a human, with personal objectives. In some cases, for example, the boss's goal might be to get a promotion, to escape from those workers, or to retire wealthy at any cost.<br />
<br />
In any case, the boss is often seen as an idiot - from the worker's perspective.<br />
<br />
Then, it get's more complicated. The boss often works for a team of bosses. That team has a boss. The boss's boss has different objectives than each lower level boss. And different objectives than the workers. Sometimes, the decisions made by the boss's boss are good for the boss, and good for the man, and good for the team. Sometimes not. It's the nature of a functioning hierarchy, that different levels have different goals and objectives, and those objectives change over time.<br />
<br />
When they are not aligned, it's easy to see that the boss's boss is an idiot too. Even when they are aligned, as much as possible, it's easy for some workers to see each layered boss as an idiot, not understanding the personal needs and objectives of the worker. And so it goes.<br />
<br />
The higher the hierarchy, the higher the layers of idiot bosses. I once worked for a company that had 5 layers of bosses, and then a board of directors, and finally the owners. Each had their own objectives, which changed over time - even more so as individuals came and left. I was a first level boss. My boss, was an idiot - a real idiot. But when I went up the hierarchy to complain, I was made aware of the reality. My boss was the son of an owner. He got his job as a family 'perk'. He was not expected to do his job well - it was my job to help pick up the slack. I resigned, but then I had to find a new job, a new boss... for better or for worse.<br />
<br />
There is no doubt of one thing. Every boss is an idiot - to the people below. Many are idiots to their co-workers, and some even idiots to their superior bosses, who are deliberately planning to eliminate them.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, we need to recognize that we all need bosses. Our bosses and their communities give us more opportunities, more power than any single individual. They are what makes us stronger than plants and animals. We need our idiot bosses. They make us stronger and healthier - except when they don't.<br />
<br />
That's how it is with health, and with freedom. It's never simple. Health benefits from multiple layers of hierarchy. Every new layer creates new opportunities for cooperation and for competition. There are lots of questions, and no easy answers, except this: all bosses are idiots.<br />
<br />
To your health, tracy<br />
<br />
<br />Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08253567439934890622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-86035747716218198432017-01-23T14:12:00.000-08:002017-05-07T08:31:09.571-07:00How Healthy are Your Freedoms?<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqDdw1OdKmfJqltclzetIy9tc1qPtb2sGLkfCkNzjEOwPQTXff0Y6dAsCoTzHAxo230AUnvYnPuB-LhPLTVUJjVmunFsIfD69lDgwBxI34nd2lC5HdTGPS4IqmSNiBjc73M3K-b_Ug9RY/s1600/HowHealthyAreYourFreedoms.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="170" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqDdw1OdKmfJqltclzetIy9tc1qPtb2sGLkfCkNzjEOwPQTXff0Y6dAsCoTzHAxo230AUnvYnPuB-LhPLTVUJjVmunFsIfD69lDgwBxI34nd2lC5HdTGPS4IqmSNiBjc73M3K-b_Ug9RY/s320/HowHealthyAreYourFreedoms.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Are our freedoms healthy? In healthicine, we say "Everyone has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of healthiness" because healthiness includes all freedoms and more, and is therefore superior to freedoms. We often think of freedoms with the phrase "life and liberty", but there is much more to freedom.<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Freedoms begin with the body, rise into our mind, encourage our spirits, and are liberated and constrained by our communities.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnglMJJSlYSUa_3CVhuwdXg3FLr26bAm6ZYxfnfSvCXe7RfySpZNhstAe1xzGdsoOOxt6seUZyNVwv8zBDA2SVo8kxzTL8TWuAz5gkegeeiT5TR2x4nRuRf_jOb13vONgC8QooMiIQk1M/s1600/BodyMindsSpiritsCommunities-Environment.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnglMJJSlYSUa_3CVhuwdXg3FLr26bAm6ZYxfnfSvCXe7RfySpZNhstAe1xzGdsoOOxt6seUZyNVwv8zBDA2SVo8kxzTL8TWuAz5gkegeeiT5TR2x4nRuRf_jOb13vONgC8QooMiIQk1M/s320/BodyMindsSpiritsCommunities-Environment.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
We can look at life, at each life entity, as a hierarchy rising from body, to mind, to spirits, to communities, each existing in their environments. What about freedoms? Let's begin at the beginning, the body.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Our bodies have freedom to move. When we are young, we don't often think about it. But, I'll never forget the time I took an elderly friend to a clinic, and the first question the nurse asked was "can you clip your own toenails?". "No.", he replied, "not for many years."</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
It never occurred to me that someday I might lose the freedom of movement to cut my own toenails. But there it is. I should live so long. Our bodies have physical freedoms. Is it healthy to have 'more' physical freedoms? I'm not sure, but I know it's healthier to be able to clip your own toenails, even if you choose have someone else do it for you.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
What types of freedoms does the body have? The body has freedom to move, freedom to stop moving, to rest, and even freedoms to change itself - to cut it's own toenails, if necessary. In summary, the body has freedom to change.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
The mind has different freedoms. Don't think of the mind as the brain. The brain is part of the body. The mind consists of the processes, conscious and unconscious, that happen in the brain components including sensory organs and nervous systems. The mind can make decisions. Not only that, the mind can make decisions, and stick to those decisions, or change them. It is free to remember what it decided, or to change what was decided. The mind can learn, but not only that. The mind can choose to teach itself, or to neglect what it has learned - consciously or unconsciously. Likes and dislikes are learned, and as a result, the mind has freedom to change what it likes, what it doesn't like; what it likes to do and what it doesn't like to do; what it wants to do, what it doesn't want to do.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
A healthy mind has freedom to choose. Freedom to choose to change what has been chosen, to choose again - the same or differently.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Our spirits have other freedoms. Perhaps a moment to define what I mean by the spirits. Minds and spirits evolved together, so closely that it is almost impossible to state with certainty which came first. There is no doubt that even the smallest animal has a mind, and also has spirits. Senses provide input from the outside world and also the internal states. The mind remembers, forgets, and calculates. Working with the spirits, it decides. What do the spirits provide that the mind does not? Fear. Anticipation. Joy. These higher level emotions are not logical, cannot be calculated by the mind. They are not directly connected to our senses, they emerge from the complexity of sensory components. If they can be calculated, they are simple facts - part of the mind, and there is little need for emotion. Why do we need emotions? To make better use of the past to facilitate our future. To anticipate danger, to anticipate and enjoy success. To feel excited, or bored - so that we move towards excitement and opportunity.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
What freedoms do our spirits have? The freedom to change. If our spirits cannot change, then once we become depressed - we might stay depressed, even in the face of opportunity. Once we become happy, we might stay happy - even in the face of danger. Healthy spirits are always changing, feeling what is happening, what might happen, analyzing what has happened in the past. Unhealthy spirits are stuck. Healthy spirits have freedom to change.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
When we normally think of freedoms - we might first think of community freedoms and constraints: parents, family, religion, the law, the government, corporations - are entities that restrict our freedoms. If we don't behave, as judged by a community, we get put in our room, in purgatory, jail, or worse. It is important to understand that communities also enable our freedoms. Communities provide opportunities for cooperation, which creates many things and opportunities an individual could never create by themselves. Humans cannot live without the assistance and opportunities provided by communities. From paths to roadways to highways to jet flight paths. Created by communities, not by individuals. It is possible for an individual to create a path, even a small road, but it's easier with a community - and with a community, it's much more useful. Sharing is an important aspect of freedom. Communities have freedoms too. They have freedom to grow, to shrink, and freedom to change. Over the long term, families, labour unions, companies and corporations, religions and governments grow and change. Communities have freedom to change. When a community loses freedom to change, it becomes weaker, less healthy.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
"<em style="border: none; line-height: 1.5;">The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak</em>", a common phrase about the differences between the freedoms of the spirit and those of the body. Maybe the body is tired. Maybe the mind is convinced that there is no time, or no logic to the action. Sometimes, it's actually "the spirit is willing, but the mind is weak". In other situations, when the spirit is willing, the mind can overrule the body's complaints. Freedoms, even individual freedoms are not simple, not trivial - are often in conflict. That's the way of health, the way of life.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMJQYHUZx40Li3eifliPxKgdHuLNkg7msGSatoPlm0VvVofldsfy8ya97y9hXaBw5nrl7TMSYLRQsXrUftmyeUy7IU16ZGDq5f_5r8X2mXlc8aXD1miwde0F_yJnj3zq94zxW-ozZrQLg/s1600/BodyMindSpiritCommunity.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="147" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMJQYHUZx40Li3eifliPxKgdHuLNkg7msGSatoPlm0VvVofldsfy8ya97y9hXaBw5nrl7TMSYLRQsXrUftmyeUy7IU16ZGDq5f_5r8X2mXlc8aXD1miwde0F_yJnj3zq94zxW-ozZrQLg/s320/BodyMindSpiritCommunity.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
When we look analyze in more detail at the relationships between body, mind, spirits and communities, we might see something like this. In this diagram we can see that mind/body (or body/mind) and spirit/mind, and community spirit are also important considerations. Body and mind compete and cooperate. Spirit and mind compete and cooperate with each other creating spirit-mind, or mind-spirit. Communities and individuals compete and cooperate. This is how freedom works. Not by absolute rights and absolute wrongs, not by complete freedom of individuals, not complete freedom of mind, nor of spirit, nor of communities. The freedom to compete for attention, to compete with other layers, and also freedom to cooperate with other layers are essential to freedom. We need freedom to make better choices in complex situations.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Freedom is not about actions, not about thought. It is about choosing.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
But for every individuals, choosing freely is not so simple. Choosing freely is simply not possible, unless we identify which layer is choosing, and I suspect, if we look closer, we will find more layers of wants, needs, goals, and objectives, of choices. Our bodies are, after all, communities of cells, which compete and cooperate freely to create communities of tissues, which compete and cooperate freely to create communities of organs and limbs, which compete and cooperate freely to create organ and limb systems, which compete and cooperate freely to create and maintain our body. Mind, spirits, and communities simply extend the cooperation, and the competition; the freedoms that bring life and health. Freedoms do not exist without constraints. Freedoms do not exist without the need to decide which freedom to choose, consciously or unconsciously.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Are our freedoms healthy? Which freedoms are healthier? Which are less healthy? Freedoms that serve one area, be it body, mind, spirits, or community, but detract from the other areas, are less healthy. Freedoms that function in or assist more than one area are healthier. Freedoms that limit freedoms, like community laws against individual or community actions -risk decreasing healthiness. Freedoms that enable other freedoms are healthier.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Absolute freedoms are not true freedoms, not truly healthy, they are the freedoms that do not change, freedoms that are sickly, that lead to sickness in other areas.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
The healthiest freedoms are freedoms that facilitate positive changes, that facilitate more freedoms.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
to your health, tracy</div>
Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08253567439934890622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-60339109864775267372017-01-03T07:24:00.001-08:002017-05-07T08:28:07.600-07:00A True Placebo has No Effects<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhykPVeG6WGmL37NuEHW81-ZmCR5mrxHiz_5JNuebdBC3rXVnaAfOjhzoSslfs0jFI31IpOW_pnwtkKRg4EquNQNKtBbN9DtDrXU3tuzPanKe_DUYU4sUnWZcASseYea2Nt6JUk56bxbMQ/s1600/APlaceboHasNoEffects1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhykPVeG6WGmL37NuEHW81-ZmCR5mrxHiz_5JNuebdBC3rXVnaAfOjhzoSslfs0jFI31IpOW_pnwtkKRg4EquNQNKtBbN9DtDrXU3tuzPanKe_DUYU4sUnWZcASseYea2Nt6JUk56bxbMQ/s320/APlaceboHasNoEffects1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Do clinical studies lie? A true placebo has no effect. Is the Gold Standard of medicine, the double blind placebo controlled trial, scientific nonsense, based on "<i>fools gold</i>"?<br />
<br />
A placebo effect, is defined by Webster's dictionary as: "<i>improvement in the condition of a patient that occurs in response to treatment but cannot be considered due to the specific treatment used</i>".<br />
<br />
In other words, a placebo is not caused by a placebo. If it is a true placebo, then it did not cause the placebo effect. Only false placebos can cause placebo effect.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
How can this be? Aren't placebos a gold standard tool of modern medicine? Actually no. Placebos are scientific nonsense.<br />
<br />
The best known, perhaps first, serious medical consideration of placebo effect, was written by Henry K. Beecher, M.D. with the title "<i>The Powerful Placebo</i>". Beecher documented many situations where a placebo, given to a patient in a clinical study, had a powerful effect. But the placebo given, by definition, could not cause the effect.<br />
<br />
But Webster's says the effect "<i>cannot be considered due to the specific treatment used</i>". How can a placebo have a powerful effect, if placebo effects are not caused by the placebo?<br />
<br />
The Oxford Dictionary attempts to provide an answer with their definition: “<i>A beneficial effect produced by a placebo drug or treatment, which cannot be attributed to the properties of the placebo itself, <b>and must therefore be due to the patient's belief in that treatment</b></i>”<br />
<br />
This answer that has been used to support many medical research studies.<br />
<br />
<b>But, it's nonsense.</b><br />
<br />
<b>If</b> placebo effect is "<i>due to the patient's belief in the treatment</i>",<br />
<br />
<b>then</b>... if we treat the patient by modifying their belief and we successfully change the beliefs of the patient,<br />
<br />
<b>then</b>...changing the patient's belief is a treatment. It's the that treatment caused "the beneficial effect" on the patient.<br />
<br />
<b>But</b>, by definition, it's a real treatment, causing a real effect, not placebo treatment.<br />
<br />
<i>A placebo treatment cannot cause placebo effect. When a treatment causes an effect, it's not a placebo treatment. </i><br />
<br />
How can this paradox be resolved? It's easy actually. We need to rewrite the definitions of placebo and placebo effect, with definitions that make sense.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Placebo Effect: </b>a beneficial effect on a patient's illness, <b>where we do not understand the cause. </b><br />
<br />
- when we understand the cause, it is not a placebo effect.<br />
- when we don't understand the cause, it is placebo effect.<br />
- when we figure out the cause of a placebo effect, it becomes a real, known cause, and the placebo effect disappears. It's converted in to a real effect.<br />
<br />
Placebo effects are like shadows, illusions, unknowns, caused by misunderstanding. As soon as we understand, they disappear. They become real effects.<br />
<br />
But... If a placebo effect is an effect where we do not understand the cause, then, what is a placebo?<br />
<br />
<b>Placebo: a treatment followed by a beneficial effect on the patients illness, where we do not understand the cause of the benefit.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>We're not saying the placebo caused the effect. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. We don't understand.<br />
<br />
What does this mean for the Gold Standard of medicine, the double blind, placebo controlled, clinical trial?<br />
<br />
A double blind placebo controlled clinical trial pits a placebo against a new medicine or treatment. Sometimes, the medicine wins. Often, it's a statistical, technical draw. Once in a while, the placebo wins.<br />
<br />
Let's look at all six cases.<br />
<br />
Six cases? Aren't there only three possible results? Actually no. There are six possible results for any treatment, depending on whether the treatment cures, or only makes the patient (or the doctor) feel better. When a treatment cures, the results have a different meaning.<br />
<h2>
When the Treatments cure:</h2>
1. If the cure is only produced in the medical treatment group, and never produced in the placebo treatment group, the medicine is clearly the best treatment.<br />
<br />
2. If the cure is sometimes produced in the medical group, and sometimes in the placebo group, then - we really don't know what happened.<br />
<br />
3. If the only the placebo treatment group produced cures, then we need to study the placebo treatment, and abandon the medical treatment.<br />
<br />
NONE of the above situations occurs in today's clinical studies. Today's clinical studies don't cure. Almost never. If the treatment cures, it is not necessary to test against a placebo. Why not? There are two main reasons:<br />
<br />
a. A cure is a cure. If we know how to cure, there is no need for a clinical study. We diagnose the disease - and prescribe the cure. The illness is cured.<br />
<br />
b. Cured is not defined for most diseases. Cured is almost NEVER defined for clinical studies. There is no need to define 'cured' for a double blind placebo controlled clinical study. In the vast majority of clinical studies, if a cure is encountered, it is ignored. Cures are not defined for the purposes of the study, and it is assumed that any cure is not a result of the medicine being tested.<br />
<h2>
When the Treatments Don't Cure:</h2>
The clinical study might produce a beneficial effect on the patient's illness, or their symptoms of illness, (or not), but it cannot produce a cure for the illness. Most clinical studies have no intention to cure.<br />
<br />
4. If the treatment group gained more benefit, than the placebo group, the treatment wins.<br />
<br />
5. If a benefit results from the treatment group, and the placebo group also sees a benefit, then we really don't know what happened. This is the result of many, perhaps most, double blind, placebo controlled clinical studies.<br />
<br />
6. If the placebo group benefits more than the treatment group - we should to pursue the placebo treatment, and discard the medical treatment. But that never happens. What actually happens? We dismiss the placebo treatment, and pursue a different medical treatment.<br />
<br />
<h2>
And the Winner is? </h2>
Most, almost all placebo controlled double blind clinical studies today result in 5. The treatment group sees some benefits. The placebo group sees some benefits. We're not really sure what happened. <br />
<br />
If the treatment group wins, the treatment heads to market. If the placebo group wins, the results are discarded.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYbcpL-OVsnlIfHj4TbTb74wix0JAuKKvV0GBFlMzdcmzwqEzgA1j67Ovupu0YkjlEYZL2OASDRcqQxdAnMQ98Z0DFfzRmH4QSxh3OVgVLiebAKT3D6iuDZCKrSFCA9bRSh5ReJLEDTFY/s1600/APlaceboHasNoEffects.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYbcpL-OVsnlIfHj4TbTb74wix0JAuKKvV0GBFlMzdcmzwqEzgA1j67Ovupu0YkjlEYZL2OASDRcqQxdAnMQ98Z0DFfzRmH4QSxh3OVgVLiebAKT3D6iuDZCKrSFCA9bRSh5ReJLEDTFY/s320/APlaceboHasNoEffects.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
How can this happen? It happens because the goal of double blind placebo controlled study is to find a medicine that "<b>does not cure" </b>better than the placebo treatment "<b>does not cure</b>".<br />
<br />
Double blind placebo controlled studies measure which treatment "<b><i>does not cure better</i></b>". The result is predictably, nonsense, failure to understand.<br />
<br />
<br />
We know that we don't know why the placebo treatment worked some of the time. But nobody cares, because they forget that<b> a true placebo treatment has no effects.</b><br />
<br />
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
The next time someone says "<em style="border: none; line-height: 1.5;">It's probably just placebo effect.</em>", ask: </div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
"<em style="border: none; line-height: 1.5;">Was it caused by a real placebo, or a false placebo?</em>"</div>
<br />
to your health, tracy<br />
<br />
<br />Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08253567439934890622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511449570016796551.post-38898418757844992662016-12-24T08:52:00.001-08:002017-05-07T08:17:26.318-07:00What's Your Christmas Happiness Score? <div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB6XAlxhMquL0x2DHKXJswjB9GgoL_Ct1WDdARePI0Czk0mxdj6k0btDkTvO0FlzgPVWNeTk9AULTsa0mxQhbCsR6PTj577NxQVsM7qdb5dw0EYb2N8chBCI7_PMsvchAPu1toUG2rLDs/s1600/ChristmasHappiness.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="134" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB6XAlxhMquL0x2DHKXJswjB9GgoL_Ct1WDdARePI0Czk0mxdj6k0btDkTvO0FlzgPVWNeTk9AULTsa0mxQhbCsR6PTj577NxQVsM7qdb5dw0EYb2N8chBCI7_PMsvchAPu1toUG2rLDs/s320/ChristmasHappiness.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
In this, the Christmas season, we often take time to think about happiness. Some people are very happy at Christmas, some - not so much, even some who are happier all year round. Christmas happiness is different. How can that be?<span data-mce-style="color: #008080;" style="color: teal; line-height: 1.5;"><em style="border: none; color: #444444; line-height: 1.5;"><a data-mce-href="http://healthicine.org/Christmas/ChristmasHappinessScore.xlsx" href="http://healthicine.org/Christmas/ChristmasHappinessScore.xlsx" style="color: #743399; line-height: 1.5;">Measure your <span data-mce-style="color: #ff0000;" style="color: red; line-height: 1.5;">Christmas</span> Happiness</a>.</em></span></div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a>What is it about happiness? Sometimes, it seems the more we pursue it, the faster it runs away. We capture it for a moment, and then it's gone. Some people never seem to be happy, while others appear always to be in the bliss of ignorance. Most of us, are floating, somewhere in-between. Seeking happiness, sometimes finding it, sometimes not.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
What is happiness? What are happinesses? Wiki offers "<em style="border: none; line-height: 1.5;">Happiness is a mental or emotional state of well-being defined by positive or pleasant emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy.</em>" That might seem pretty broad - happiness can be a lot of things. But actually, it's too narrow. Happiness is a mental or emotional state, yes, but it can also be physical healthiness - or even community healthiness, community spirit. When you have a toothache, or arthritis, it's not just your mind that is unhappy - your body is complaining too.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
This diagram represents the circles of healthiness of an individual. Each person has one body, but can be of several minds, has many spirits that ebb and flow throughout their days and their lifetime - and participates in many communities. The circles are fuzzy - actually fuzzier than the diagram. In team sports for example, when "<em style="border: none; line-height: 1.5;">in the zone"</em>, the line between body and community can merge completely.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJp3fSt4bnVks0LrC3f6oqKwPc3jWNdQ8K5VAxlAXFgnuZFAGRxeeLNZf9x-ihnseM8RKA718npV0UzOB-Os58EkmZgUXNHVAiYes1UGCSQNLw2Pb8Cp2CUITTnMpruPdAAtjnu24E8wo/s1600/BodyMindsSpiritsCommunities.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="309" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJp3fSt4bnVks0LrC3f6oqKwPc3jWNdQ8K5VAxlAXFgnuZFAGRxeeLNZf9x-ihnseM8RKA718npV0UzOB-Os58EkmZgUXNHVAiYes1UGCSQNLw2Pb8Cp2CUITTnMpruPdAAtjnu24E8wo/s320/BodyMindsSpiritsCommunities.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Healthiness, and happiness too, exists in every circle - body, minds, spirits, and communities.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
We might pretend that the happinesses of Christmas are about getting presents, extensions of the body, our physical self, but no. The happinesses of Christmas are spirit and community happiness.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Christmas has an interesting effect on community happinesses. When Christmas comes, we have to choose which community to be with. By choosing, we must also exclude some of our communities. We can, if we try, find many ways to include more of our communities, by travelling and spreading Christmas across many days - but some people limit their communities at Christmas. Some people deliberately exclude some, or a large number of their communities at Christmas - and their Christmas happinesses suffer.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
We can each choose to involve more, or fewer of our communities at Christmas - but our communities, and the people in those communities, are choosing as well. When others exclude us, it's harder to work on our own community happinesses. There are two sides to any community happiness - one of which we cannot control.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<a data-mce-href="http://www.louisianaparadox.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Hills-Argyle-2002.pdf" href="http://www.louisianaparadox.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Hills-Argyle-2002.pdf" style="color: #743399; line-height: 1.5;" target="_blank">The Oxford Happiness Questionaire</a> is a set of 29 questions designed to measure happiness, or 'psychological well-being'. They are not sorted by body, minds, spirits, and communities - but clearly refer to each area. From them, we can create some sample groupings of their measures;<br />
<strong style="color: black; line-height: 1.5;">Body:</strong> feeling healthy, energy levels, rested, alertness, attractiveness,<br />
<strong style="color: black; line-height: 1.5;">Mind;</strong> rested, alertness, attractiveness, make decisions, get things done, good memories, able to find beauty, optimism, satisfaction, empowered, rewarded by life, and influence events,<br />
<strong style="color: black; line-height: 1.5;">Spirit:</strong> happy, pleased, laughter, joy, elation, optimism, satisfaction, empowered, rewarded by life,<br />
<strong style="color: black; line-height: 1.5;">Community:</strong> interested in people, cheerful, fun, warm feelings towards others, .</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Note: there is overlap, or fuzziness, as in the coloured diagram. Many questions refer to different layers of happiness at the same time. The Oxford Happiness quiz appears to put the most attention on mental and spiritual happiness, with much less emphasis on physical and community happiness. On the other hand, painkillers are designed to improve physical healthiness, while we use alcoholic drinks can improve social healthiness.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
The World Happiness Report measures and compares happiness of people around the world. You can view their <a data-mce-href="http://worldhappiness.report/" href="http://worldhappiness.report/" style="color: #743399; line-height: 1.5;" target="_blank">2016 report on world happiness if you are interested in learning more</a>. They define happiness as 'subjective well being', and their measures of happiness seem to be, like the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire, mostly based on mind and spirit happinesses. The <a data-mce-href="https://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/" href="https://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/" style="color: #743399; line-height: 1.5;" target="_blank">Authentic Happiness website</a>, managed by the <a data-mce-href="http://ppc.sas.upenn.edu/" href="http://ppc.sas.upenn.edu/" style="color: #743399; line-height: 1.5;" target="_blank">Positive Psychology Centre</a>, offers many quizzes and tools to measure different aspects of happiness, but does not distinguish well between body happiness, mind happiness, spirit happiness - and does not pay much attention to community happiness at all. Most of their focus appears to be on 'emotional' aspects of happiness - which in healthicine is 'spirit happiness'.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Complete happiness requires happiness in every layer: body, mind, spirit, community. Is it possible to feel happy if the body is unhealthy? Actually it is. Drug addicts sometimes work so hard to find happiness - that they can kill their bodies. To the outsider, it's a false happiness, but to the addict, it might be the best they can do at the time.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
We can see false happiness when we raise one layer above the others artificially. However, this technique can be useful, and can - over a short period of time, actually make us happier. When we hurt our physical body, get a tooth pulled, or undergo a surgery, a painkiller, or a placebo, can provide relief and helps us recover.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
On the other hand, sometimes a powerful happiness technique becomes addictive, leading to unhappiness that spreads throughout the entire person. Too much team spirit - community happiness, can lead to loss of self, loss of mental and emotional happiness. Constant attempts to find joy - emotional or spirit happiness can lead to seeking or purchasing more and more things - sacrificing other happiness of the body, mind, and community. Being too rational is a common road to unhappiness - it's always easier to criticize, and to rationalize criticism, than it is to understand, accept and be grateful.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Physical happiness comes from a healthy body. Healthy bodies come from healthy nutrition and movement. Dead things aren't healthy, they don't move. When you stop moving, you lose healthiness, and happiness too. When you move your body, happiness increases.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Pain resides in mind and body - and intrudes into our spirits and communities. Empathy includes community pain and community pleasure - community happiness. Pain can be real, physical, but our minds, spirits, and even our communities can create it, magnify it, and diminish it. Seeking happiness in painkillers - drugs - can lead to an empty happiness, that feels great, sometimes even as the body stops moving and dies. Sometimes, pain requires rest, to facilitate healing. But often, pain, and healing requires movement. <a data-mce-href="http://personalhealthfreedom.blogspot.ca/2014/03/when-i-let-loose-my-dog-my-spirits-fly.html" href="http://personalhealthfreedom.blogspot.ca/2014/03/when-i-let-loose-my-dog-my-spirits-fly.html" style="color: #743399; line-height: 1.5;" target="_blank">When I walk my dog - I feel no pain.</a> Life, health, and happiness are not simple.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
The mind, like the body, is happy when it is active, happiest when it is "<em style="border: none; line-height: 1.5;">in the flow</em>". "<em style="border: none; line-height: 1.5;">I'm bored!</em>" is the classic adolescent expression of unhappiness, often expecting something from the outside to make them happy. But mental happiness comes from within. We can exert power over our mind, by planning specific actions. We can enjoy joy more - by anticipating it. Simple acts of gratefulness can create and improve mental happiness.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
The line between mental happiness and spirit happiness is the line between your rational and your emotional self. Like all boundaries, it is fuzzy. Do you think you are happy (minds) do you feel happy (spirits). A reliance on one to the exclusion of the other leads to a happiness imbalance - and to unhappiness.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
At Christmas time the happinesses and the unhappinesses that we notice most are those of community. Christmas brings families together, whether they are strongly religious or not. Those with strong religious beliefs return to our religious communities. Community happiness is a measure of the healthiness of our selves - body, mind, and spirit - in our communities, and also the healthiness of our communities towards each other and towards ourselves.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
People with stronger, healthier communities, have more community happiness. Much of the year, we live independent lives, but at Christmas, we choose to make our communities more important. It is perhaps ironic that Christmas is often all about getting gifts for the 'body', the personal self - but these gifts do little for community healthiness. Giving, on the other hand, can benefit community healthiness. But not just gifts. The most powerful gifts for community healthiness are ourselves. When we give our time, our bodies, our minds, and our spirits to our families, and to other communities, we improve our own happiness and the healthiness and happiness of the community.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
It is possible to use drugs to feel happy, but many drugs cause the person to retreat from community, from society - resulting in a physical and mental excess of happiness, but a severe loss of spirit and community happiness. Others, like alcohol, can enhance spirit and community happiness, but if used excessively they result in poor physical and mental health, poor physical and mental happiness, leading to poor community happiness.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Is it possible to be 'too happy'? Actually, yes it is. It is possible to rely too much on physical (body) happiness, or mind (rational) happiness, or spirit (emotional) happiness, or social (community) happiness, leading to happiness imbalances - unhappiness. If you are too happy, Pollyanna happiness, you have two problems. First - the only way is down. Every action you take might make you less happy. But perhaps more important, if you are too happy - you have nothing to strive for, and lose those aspects of happiness.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Analgesics, antidepressants, alcohol, and more. Sometimes, they are effective - especially in the short term, but in the long term they can easily lead to addiction, danger, and death.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
What about placebos? Can placebos make us happier - better than drugs? The main benefit of a placebo is no side effects. People are much less likely to become addicted to a placebo - and if so, what's the harm? But the definition of a placebo is weak, and many real actions that improve happiness might seem to be nothing but a placebo. Being grateful is a powerful tool to improve happiness. It's not a drug. Is it a placebo? No. A placebo is something that has no real effect. Prayer might seem to be a placebo, but it can lift the spirits - and in a church it can also feed community happiness.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Is unhappiness the opposite of happiness? It can be, but that's a simplistic view. Unhappiness can also be the absence of happiness, or a severe imbalances in happiness - caused by excessive happiness in one area. Unhappiness is opportunity for improvement in happiness - just as <a data-mce-href="http://personalhealthfreedom.blogspot.ca/2015/01/embracing-unhealthinesses.html" href="http://personalhealthfreedom.blogspot.ca/2015/01/embracing-unhealthinesses.html" style="color: #743399; line-height: 1.5;" target="_blank">unhealthiness is an opportunity for improvements in healthiness</a>.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
By separating happiness, and unhappiness into body, mind, spirit, and community, we gain more insight into how to improve our happiness. Happiness in the body is improved or gained by actions that improve the healthiness of the body. A healthy body is a happy body. Happiness of the mind can be improved by directed positive thinking, by removing mental roadblocks. Happiness of spirit is central - and can be improved by many techniques that improves happiness, from meditation to play. Community happiness is improved by active participation in your communities, and by working to make your communities happier.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
At present, there are no scientific tools to measure your level of Christmas Happiness, so I've created one in EXCEL, and you can download it here:</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<a data-mce-href="http://healthicine.org/Christmas/ChristmasHappinessScore.xlsx" href="http://healthicine.org/Christmas/ChristmasHappinessScore.xlsx" style="color: #743399; line-height: 1.5;">Christmas Happiness Score</a>.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5; margin-bottom: 24px;">
to your health, tracy<br />
Founder: Healthicine</div>
Tracy Kolenchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08253567439934890622noreply@blogger.com