Tuesday, July 20, 2021

A Letter to my Vaccinated Friends

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I also believe strongly in the basic medical right to refuse treatment. 

A patient may refuse treatment that the healthcare provider deems to be an act of beneficence out of the principle of autonomy. In the United States, the right to refuse treatment is protected by 42 CFR § 482.13. and A patient’s autonomy is violated when family members or members of a healthcare team pressure a patient...Patient Rights And Ethics

 A patient has the right to refuse or to halt a medical intervention. A DECLARATION ON THE PROMOTION OF PATIENTS’ RIGHTS IN EUROPE

 Patients must always be free to consent to or refuse treatment, and be free of any suggestion of duress or coercion. Consent: A guide for Canadian Physicians

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.

I believe in basic medical science. Scientifically, the COVID vaccines are new technologies, largely untested. We will not experience “one year later effects” until at least December 2021. We might not understand the total effects for decades. As a result, fully informed consent is not possible at present.

Why am I writing this letter? 

Some of my friends and family have expressed concerns about meeting with me, if I am not vaccinated. 

I am not afraid of COVID.

If you are afraid, and afraid to be near me – let me know. Although I do not share it, I will respect your fear. 

I have my own fears, and I am always open to handshakes and hugs to alleviate them.

to your health, tracy

Sunday, December 13, 2020

CENSORED-19 Why do we have Vaccines but no Cures?

 

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.

Cure

Cured is not defined for CENSORED-19. This is not surprising. Our medical systems generally ignore cured except for infectious diseases cured by a medicine that kills the infectious cause. Even in those cases, most cures are ignored.

Like the common cold, most cases of CENSORED-19 are cured by health. While our medical systems say: “ there is no cure for the common cold,” millions of people get colds and cure them — but nobody cares. There are no statistics of the common cold cured.

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 CENSORED-19 cured is not possible, cured being undefined. There are tests for CENSORED-19, but no tests for CENSORED-19 cured. Note: It is also impossible to prove CENSORED-19 “not cured” because cured is not defined scientifically or medically. No medical distinction is possible between a case of CENSORED-19 recovered, one in remission, and a case of CENSORED-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.

Our medical systems often confuse “ is cured” and “ has been cured.” Medically, has been cured requires an approved medicine. Is cured, on the other hand, might happen because of natural healthy processes or from alternative treatments — but is cured doesn’t count medically.

The CENSORED-CoV-2 virus causes CENSORED-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, “ there is no cure for measles, “ 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.

As we work to create a definition of cured for CENSORED-19, it quickly gets complicated. A case of CENSORED-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 CENSORED-19 can be diagnosed. In those cases, CENSORED-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 CENSORED pneumonia and CENSORED-Treatment PTSD. Each element of CENSORED-19 requires a unique cure.

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.

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 CENSORED-19 cured scientifically. Everyone is busy looking for a cure (not defined) or developing a vaccine. The same is true of many diseases.

Most cures come from health, not from medicines. There is no generalized scientific definition of cure in any conventional or alternative medical theory. Curing CENSORED-19, and proving it cured, is impossible in our current medical paradigm. Curing CENSORED-19 is possible, but seeing it is not. The elephant is in the room — but we can’t see it.

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 “ lies, damn lies, and statistics “.

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.

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. Prevention is better than cure is a useful concept, not always true. However, it’s also a powerful marketing tool.

Preventatives are sold by marketing fear. BE AFRAID! There are no cures for CENSORED-19.

But, when someone has CENSORED-19, a preventative is no use. Preventatives don’t cure. Even after patients recover, we can sell them a preventative. Maybe they’re not protected. Generating fear increases sales.

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, CENSORED-19 Pneumonia, or CENSORED-19 PTSD. If we cure the ARDS quickly, we can prevent the pneumonia and PTSD. Curing each stage prevents the next.

When we have CENSORED-19, cures are better than preventatives… But, most people only have CENSORED-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.

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.


To your health, Tracy
Author: The Science of Cure
Author: The Elements of Cure

Author: A Theory of Cure

This post is based on my answer to the Quora question: Why were the vaccines for CENSORED created quicker than the cures? 

Tuesday, August 25, 2020

COVID-19 Treatments: Holistic or Reductionist?

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: COVID-19 from Causes to Cures, provides a clear explanation.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.

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.

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.

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.

Holistic Treatments

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Vitamin M, music, is not a medicine, but it is a healthicine. 

Reductionist Treatments

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.

Holistic can become Reductionist

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.

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.

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.

Medical Approvals

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 "prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure a disease." There are no approval mechanisms for any medicines that improve healthiness - because healthiness is not a disease.

COVID-19 Treatments

Like any disease, we might prevent, treat, and cure COVID-19 with holistic actions or with reductionist treatments.

Holistic actions cannot be approved to treat COVID-19, because holistic treatments cannot be approved to treat any disease.

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.

Holistic treatments do not need to be approved.

So, according to the World Health Organization, "To date, there are no specific vaccines or medicines for COVID-19." Why not? Because there are no proven reductionist treatments.

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.

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.

to your health, tracy
Author: The Elements of Cure
Author: COVID-19 from Causes to Cures 

 

Tuesday, April 9, 2019

Why do so many people in the US believe in Pseudoscience?


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. 
It makes no sense at all.
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? 
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.
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.
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.
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. 
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). 
  • the bureaucracies, the corporate and government bureaucracies are not-pseudoscience,
  • ideas and practices they support are not- pseudoscience,
  • the ideas and practices they ignore or don't care about are “probably just pseudoscience” and
  • the things they don't like or don't agree with are pseudoscience.

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.
But, back to the question, and a direct answer: Why do so many people in the USA believe in Pseudoscience? 
Belief in pseudoscience is a belief in bureaucracy. A belief in the propaganda of national and international, corporate and government bureaucracies. 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.
Corporate and government bureaucrats like to believe in pseudoscience because they can use it to further their bureaucratic goals and objectives.
Media representatives like to believe in pseudoscience because it's news, because it sells.
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?   
To your health, Tracy
Founder: Healthicine
Note: This post began as an answer to the Quora question: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-people-in-the-US-believe-in-psuedoscience/answer/Tracy-Kolenchuk 

Thursday, January 10, 2019

The Elements of Cure

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?

The Elements of Cure in less than 100 pages, provides a comprehensive summary of the concepts first introduced in the book A Calculus of Curing and updated in the book CURE, a comprehensive view of cause, illness and cure.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Let's begin the practice of curing:
Order the Elements of Cure for your Kindle. 
Order the Elements of Cure in print.

to your health, tracy
Founder: Healthicine
Author: The Elements of Cure

Thursday, October 11, 2018

Strange and Surprising Facts About Placebos

Placebos and placebo effects are strange, stranger than we think.  What is truly strange, truly surprising about both, are the basic facts.

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?

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).

Placebo - Historical Definition


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:


  • the doctor believes a patient has a medical condition.
  • the doctor knows of no beneficial treatment for the condition.
  • the doctor prescribes a treatment with the belief that it will not help the patient’s medical condition, but that it will help the patient feel better. 

The treatment is then referred to as a placebo. Often it is an important treatment for other medical conditions.

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.

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.

Clinical Placebo


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.

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.

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.

Clinical placebos are designed, created and administered by the doctor or medical researcher.  Their existence requires a medical professional.

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.

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.

Placebo - Common Usage


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 symptomicines, 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.

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.

Comparisons of conventional medicines to alternative medicines is a debate which can be summarized in the question:

"which medicine, conventional or alternative, DOES NOT CURE better?".

The Placebo Problem


Clinical placebos and real placebos are both called placebos, even though


  • they are created by the intentions of the doctor
  • the intentions of the doctor are dramatically different for real placebo vs clinical placebo


In addition, most people, even many doctors, use the word placebo without attention to either standard medical definition.

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 "it's probably just a placebo" without any understanding much less proof, and never risk being challenged.

Placebo Effect

A Placebo effect exists when:

1. the doctor believes a patient has a medical condition
2. the doctor believes the condition has been treated, by themselves, by another doctor, or perhaps self-treated by the patient.
3. the doctor observes or believes the treatment was followed by an improvement in the patient’s condition, possibly even a cure, although cures are rarely studied.
4. the doctor believes the improvement was NOT caused by said treatment.
the doctor dismisses the treatment, often dismissing the benefit as well, calling it a “placebo effect”.
5. The doctor cannot know the cause of the improvement. If the cause is known, it’s a real effect with a real cause, not a placebo effect.

Placebo effects are created entirely in the mind of the doctor. 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.

Common Usage: Placebo Effect 


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:

  • A placebo effect is a real, positive effect on the patient's condition. By definition: placebo effects are good. 
  • 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. 
  • 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. 
  • 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. 

Placebo Effect Claims


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 "It's probably just... placebo effect." A true claim of "placebo effect" requires that the speaker, or the doctor NOT understand the cause. 

Why do so many people make false claims about placebo effects? Because claims of "it's only placebo effect" create status, make the speaker seem important, like a doctor.  Such claims are seldom challenged, giving status.

Placebo Cures


Can placebos cure? Do placebo effects include cures?

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. The word cure does not appear in many medical dictionaries and is not defined in any medical treatment reference or text.

We don't know if placebos or placebo effects result in cures, because of our lack of understanding of cure.

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.

Placebo Myths

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.

"Placebos are medicines or treatments that provide no medical benefit." 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.

"Placebo effects are a result of the beliefs of the patient." 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.

"Placebos effects are imaginary."  and "Placebo effects are bad." 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.

"Benefits provided by alternative medicines are generally placebo effects, created by the beliefs of the patient, not true benefits." 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. 



to your health, tracy
Author: A Calculus of Curing

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.

If clearly defines cure, compound cure, partial cure, temporary cure, and other variations of cure.


Dictionary References


Webster's: Placebo: 
1. a: a usually pharmacologically inert preparation prescribed more for the mental relief of the patient than for its actual effect on a disorder
b : an inert or innocuous substance used especially in controlled experiments testing the efficacy of another substance (such as a drug)
2 : something tending to soothe

Webster's: Placebo Effect:
improvement in the condition of a patient that occurs in response to treatment but cannot be considered due to the specific treatment used 

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Why does the FDA not crack down on supplements?

The FDA does not crack down on supplements.  It's not their role. The FDA cracks down on “claims”. 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.
This is an important aspect of freedom.
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.
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”.
I am free to believe what I want about garlic.
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.
The FDA is the “Food and Drug Administration”. They regulate, and crack down on drug claims and on a substance function claims.
There is another important aspect to freedom.
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.
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. 
The FDA approves HEALTH CLAIMS. What the FDA calls a “health claim” is actually a “disease claim”. 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.
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”.
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 "We only evaluate claims when the paperwork is completed. (and the fees are paid)"  eg. Until someone prepares marketing material for a product, with a claim that it "prevents dehydration", the claim will not be evaluated. 
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.
to your health, tracy
Founder: Healthicine

Thursday, August 24, 2017

The Old Erebus (The New Colossus Revised for the current times)


The Old Erebus

But, like the depraved giant of Greek fame,
With conquering whims that tweet from hand to hand;
Here at our white-washed, prison wall shall guard
A weighty no-man with a lurch, whose lame
Excuses rain like lightning, and his name
Hater of Others. From his bacon-hand
Grows mouth-wide sneer; his blind eyes command
The liar. Rigged ardor, that gives citizens blame.
“Keep, lands ancient, your pomp storied!” cries he
With widened lips. “Send not your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of my egoistic snore.
Send those, the homeless, tempest-tossed home,
or to light my lamp beside the golden door!”


 © Tracy Kolenchuk, Healthicine