Helping The Enemy, Big Pharma

[grithin]

It appears that Ray has the false notion that, given good health, people are naturally creative and curious and will come to good solutions. I have never found this to be the case to any societally significant degree. The vast majority of people (?>99%), cling to paradigms regardless of their health or upbringing. For example, we've had democrats clinging to the Trump-Russia narrative, and then we've had republicans clinging to the personality of Trump. Koreans, who are in relatively great health compared to Americans owing to their diets, don’t question mask mandates.

The way people change paradigms is not by the introduction of truth that falsifies the paradigm, but by pressure that forces the person away from the paradigm. Most people who realize there is something wrong with the medical system do so only b/c they've had health problems, or a relative has had health problems, which the medical system made worse or refused to fix.

Even still, most people who delve lightly into alternative medicine, usually by recommendation (from friends, family, or a non-typical doctor), find a herb or substance that eases their health problem, and then they continue on as normal, paying into and supporting the existing medical monopoly that will eventually obliterate alternative options.

That the monopolists controlling the health systems want to obliterate alternative options should be apparent. They attempted it too early with Codex Alimentarius, an attempt to internationalize the outlaw of all non sanctioned substances. They were a little more subtle with Obamacare, which results in a forced standard care. Pharma benefits by forcing, by government mandate, consumers to use their cures/treatments.

By advancing alternative medicine, this mostly serves to:
-provide pressure releases for those who continue to support the system
-provide doctors options for giving their patients pressure releases, while still maintaining mostly standard care
And, these serve to support the system that will eventually force standard, pharma care.

I like the Ray Peat community b/c it tends to come with a distrust of mainstream. However, this doesn't prevent the solutions found or presented in this community from being exported without the attachment of distrust, and similarly benefiting the impending medical imprisonment by stabilizing the system that leads to it.

 

[Ben.]

Most people who realize there is something wrong with the medical system do so only b/c they've had health problems, or a relative has had health problems, which the medical system made worse or refused to fix.

Even still, most people who delve lightly into alternative medicine, usually by recommendation (from friends, family, or a non-typical doctor), find a herb or substance that eases their health problem, and then they continue on as normal, paying into and supporting the existing medical monopoly that will eventually obliterate alternative options.

This text describes me and i dont like it ...

It appears that Ray has the false notion that, given good health, people are naturally creative and curious and will come to good solutions. I have never found this to be the case to any societally significant degree.

Joking aside i observed this similary to how you describe here. And i found myself guilty of this too and i think as you've said its like this for the majority of us. People don't care aslong as their healthy enough to function in this madness we are living in. We become very strongly oblivious to this stuff if we feel well enough.

The Illusion has to break first. And when it did i was insanely confused as to how others cannot see any of it, let alone accept and celebrate it. How can they consider all of this normal ...
I think one has to experience it to understand the distrust and anger towards the medical establishment.

By advancing alternative medicine, this mostly serves to:
-provide pressure releases for those who continue to support the system
-provide doctors options for giving their patients pressure releases, while still maintaining mostly standard care
And, these serve to support the system that will eventually force standard, pharma care.

So enforce the use of alternative substances and practices in the current medical field to create a wider variety and options for patients so it will be eventually an integrated part to the current system/norm which releases pressures for patients and the monopoly in theraphies from certain drug companys?

The alternative scene has one major issue tho: Unregulated stuff with alot of mostly anecdotal evidence, supplements which are easy subjects to fraud and or impurities, no lawful liability towards the "health experts" and things like herbs can be potentially very very dangerous and have been lifethreating in some instances.

The alternative scene seems to me to be a place of overwhelming fraud. Finding the gems in it and the stuff that actually works is no easy task. The market is insanely huge and the list of wonder herbs and extracts knows no boundaries.

I like the Ray Peat community b/c it tends to come with a distrust of mainstream. However, this doesn't prevent the solutions found or presented in this community from being exported without the attachment of distrust, and similarly benefiting the impending medical imprisonment by stabilizing the system that leads to it.

Distrust is okay, we shoudln't take anything blindly at face value. The issue with some people on this forum seems to be a complete blind trust in everything god ray says. People should question him too, even if its just for the sake of understanding him better.

Why would the solutions found or presented in this community benefit the impending medical imprisonment? Because people not deep into the work of this forum and ray peat take something to heal themself while contuining to pay and contribute to the current flawed system? Woudn't some health succes from a place like this automaticly lead to questioning/distrusting the very system? Maybe i understand your last phrase wrong.

 

[grithin]

Why would the solutions found or presented in this community benefit the impending medical imprisonment? Because people not deep into the work of this forum and ray peat take something to heal themself while contuining to pay and contribute to the current flawed system? Woudn't some health succes from a place like this automaticly lead to questioning/distrusting the very system? Maybe i understand your last phrase wrong.

" Woudn't some health succes from a place like this automaticly lead to questioning/distrusting the very system"
For the most part, no, and to the extent it does, the questioning does not disrupt the system.

So enforce the use of alternative substances and practices in the current medical field to create a wider variety and options for patients so it will be eventually an integrated part to the current system/norm which releases pressures for patients and the monopoly in theraphies from certain drug companys?

Substances are modified or outlawed, and then reintroduced at a higher price as licensed treatment (prescription).

The alternative scene seems to me to be a place of overwhelming fraud. Finding the gems in it and the stuff that actually works is no easy task. The market is insanely huge and the list of wonder herbs and extracts knows no boundaries.

Of course. it is a consequence of the system, and involves too many economic dynamics for me to detail here.

 

[MyUsernameHere]

The issue with some people on this forum seems to be a complete blind trust in everything god ray says. People should question him too, even if its just for the sake of understanding him better.

A lot of the things that help me and that I found to be true with regards to my health problems don't really align with what Ray or a fair number of people here advocate.
I will admit that the main reason I am here, is that I simply do not know of any other online discussion platform where people are are allowed to discuss non-mainstream subjects and viewpoints on anything health related. Everywhere is either heavily censored or a complete echo chamber where you're immediately booted out if you dare even question let alone be contrarian (think Reddit), and this is even on subjects as mundane as diet.

There is a lot of good information here, but it doesn't mean you need to agree with everything. Self-experimentation should come above anyone's theory, and most people will follow good results in the long run, wherever they may lead them.

 

[tankasnowgod]

It appears that Ray has the false notion that, given good health, people are naturally creative and curious and will come to good solutions. I have never found this to be the case to any societally significant degree.

Why do you think this is a false notion? How many people do you really know in good health? Do you think most of "society" is in good health? I think there is a notion here that society itself, especially today, is sick in various ways.

 

[grithin]

Why do you think this is a false notion? How many people do you really know in good health? Do you think most of "society" is in good health? I think there is a notion here that society itself, especially today, is sick in various ways.

You have to take the statement in context: "will come to good solutions .... to any societally significant degree .... [as it relates to] impending medical imprisonment"
That people are more curious and creative when they are healthy is not my contention, but rather, my contention is against the notion that making people healthy is the solution to our impending societal problem. Further, I specify how doing so actually supports the problem. Do you have a contention with my analysis?

Healthy dolphins are also playful and curious, they might even solve some problems better, but they aren't going to solve the medical system problem. On the other hand, I believe Ray Peat came to many of his good solutions through adversity and bad health.

I agree, society is very sick. On pre-diabetes alone, you can say most of society is not in good health.

 

[tankasnowgod]

You have to take the statement in context: "will come to good solutions .... to any societally significant degree .... [as it relates to] impending medical imprisonment"
That people are more curious and creative when they are healthy is not my contention, but rather, my contention is against the notion that making people healthy is the solution to our impending societal problem. Further, I specify how doing so actually supports the problem. Do you have a contention with my analysis?

To be honest, I don't even understand what you are trying to say.

Your very first sentence of your original post is a direct contradiction to the statement "That people are more curious and creative when they are healthy is not my contention," seeing as you called it a "false notion."

 

[grithin]

To be honest, I don't even understand what you are trying to say.

Your very first sentence of your original post is a direct contradiction to the statement "That people are more curious and creative when they are healthy is not my contention," seeing as you called it a "false notion."

When a notion has many parts, the claim that the notion is false can apply to one of those parts. In this case, that part is "good solutions" with the stated qualifier being "societally significant" and the context being fixing the medical/societal problem of today. I'm inclined to think you did not read the post or your first language is not English. But, either way, I don't intend to further explain the semantics.

 

[tankasnowgod]

When a notion has many parts, the claim that the notion is false can apply to one of those parts. In this case, that part is "good solutions" with the stated qualifier being "societally significant" and the context being fixing the medical/societal problem of today. I'm inclined to think you did not read the post or your first language is not English. But, either way, I don't intend to further explain the semantics.

No, my first language is English and your very first sentence of the original post is-

"It appears that Ray has the false notion that, given good health, people are naturally creative and curious and will come to good solutions."

Right off the bat, you are calling this idea of Ray's a false notion. There isn't another way to spin it. You don't even mention the phrase "good solutions" anywhere else in the post. I did read through your post, but found it convoluted, and I really don't know what you are trying to say. There is nothing in the rest of your post to contradict this idea, either.

 

[grithin]

Right off the bat, you are calling this idea of Ray's a false notion. There isn't another way to spin it.

Do you understand what a qualifier is? Do you realize it can be made in a following sentence? Do you understand I specified the qualifier as:
" I have never found this to be the case to any societally significant degree"?

This should lead you to think:
1. He may have found it to be the case in non-societally significant degrees
2. what is "societally significant"?

You could continue reading to figure out what "societally significant" refers to, and discover

". The vast majority of people (?>99%), cling to paradigms regardless of their health or upbringing. For example, we've had democrats clinging to the Trump-Russia narrative, and then we've had republicans clinging to the personality of Trump. Koreans, who are in relatively great health compared to Americans owing to their diets, don’t question mask mandates."

"societally significant", thereby, includes things like politics and the medical system (mask mandate). You could then figure that I was addressing that the creativity and curiousness inspired by good health does not lead people to fix the medical system (come up with good, societally significant solutions).

What is the point of your continued posting in this thread? If you had the means to contribute meaningfully, you'd probably have understood the post . You don't understand it, as you've said, and you aren't even contending with any of the intended substance.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Do you understand what a qualifier is? Do you realize it can be made in a following sentence? Do you understand I specified the qualifier as:
" I have never found this to be the case to any societally significant degree"?

This should lead you to think:
1. He may have found it to be the case in non-societally significant degrees
2. what is "societally significant"?

You could continue reading to figure out what "societally significant" refers to, and discover

". The vast majority of people (?>99%), cling to paradigms regardless of their health or upbringing. For example, we've had democrats clinging to the Trump-Russia narrative, and then we've had republicans clinging to the personality of Trump. Koreans, who are in relatively great health compared to Americans owing to their diets, don’t question mask mandates."

"societally significant", thereby, includes things like politics and the medical system (mask mandate). You could then figure that I was addressing that the creativity and curiousness inspired by good health does not lead people to fix the medical system (come up with good, societally significant solutions).

What is the point of your continued posting in this thread? If you had the means to contribute meaningfully, you'd probably have understood the post . You don't understand it, as you've said, and you aren't even contending with any of the intended substance.

You bring it up, and then give a bunch of examples that don't counteract it. Or, in the case of Koreans, isn't accurate (or fully accurate).

First off, Peat's claim applies more to individual decisions than groups. And even then, you give examples of recent group decisions. Since people's health has been declining in general, I don't even see how this would invalidate the first concept. The examples you gave (if they can be called "decisions") would only prove the corollary to the original statement- that people in poor health tend to make poor decisions.

Basically, I was attacking the core concept of your argument.

Also, your analysis of Koreans doesn't appear to be true-

South Korea: incidents of Covid-19 'mask rage' flare as summer heats up

Hot weather is making mask wearing increasingly uncomfortable, prompting some people to refuse face coverings in defiance of government advice

www.theguardian.com

 

[grithin]

You bring it up, and then give a bunch of examples that don't counteract it. Or, in the case of Koreans, isn't accurate (or fully accurate).

First off, Peat's claim applies more to individual decisions than groups. And even then, you give examples of recent group decisions. Since people's health has been declining in general, I don't even see how this would invalidate the first concept. The examples you gave (if they can be called "decisions") would only prove the corollary to the original statement- that people in poor health tend to make poor decisions.

Basically, I was attacking the core concept of your argument.

Also, your analysis of Koreans doesn't appear to be true-

South Korea: incidents of Covid-19 'mask rage' flare as summer heats up

Hot weather is making mask wearing increasingly uncomfortable, prompting some people to refuse face coverings in defiance of government advice

www.theguardian.com

How is an individual's decision to support the "Trump-Russia narrative" a group decision, or an individual's decision to support the Trump personality a group decision? They are not group decisions, they are group tendencies.
How is an individual's choice not to question the mask mandate a group decision? To the contrary, nothing I mentioned there was a group decision.

Here, I will even help you interpret:
" regardless of their health or upbringing .... democrats clinging to the Trump-Russia narrative, and republicans clinging to the personality of Trump"
There are, assuredly, some healthy democrats and republicans, and they fall into the groups stated above, individually making the poor decisions specified.

Most amusingly, if you read just the first statement of that news article about Korea, it was the "increasingly uncomfortable" weather, as in, it was the ill-health caused by the masks with the weather, that led people to question wearing them.

Frankly, you've presented too many cases of irrationality and obtuseness for me to continue discussion with you. So, I will discontinue at this point.

 

[tankasnowgod]

How is an individual's decision to support the "Trump-Russia narrative" a group decision, or an individual's decision to support the Trump personality a group decision? They are not group decisions, they are group tendencies.
How is an individual's choice not to question the mask mandate a group decision? To the contrary, nothing I mentioned there was a group decision.

Which individuals are you specifically speaking of, and how are you measuring their health status?

 

[equipoise]

A lot of the things that help me and that I found to be true with regards to my health problems don't really align with what Ray or a fair number of people here advocate.
I will admit that the main reason I am here, is that I simply do not know of any other online discussion platform where people are are allowed to discuss non-mainstream subjects and viewpoints on anything health related. Everywhere is either heavily censored or a complete echo chamber where you're immediately booted out if you dare even question let alone be contrarian (think Reddit), and this is even on subjects as mundane as diet.

There is a lot of good information here, but it doesn't mean you need to agree with everything. Self-experimentation should come above anyone's theory, and most people will follow good results in the long run, wherever they may lead them.

 

[Ben.]

There is a lot of good information here, but it doesn't mean you need to agree with everything. Self-experimentation should come above anyone's theory, and most people will follow good results in the long run, wherever they may lead them.

Coudn't have said it better.

" Woudn't some health succes from a place like this automaticly lead to questioning/distrusting the very system"
For the most part, no, and to the extent it does, the questioning does not disrupt the system.

Of course. it is a consequence of the system, and involves too many economic dynamics for me to detail here.

I didn't think it would disrupt the system. It would require a significant change and understanding on a huge scale across the population which, pardon my pessimism, i don't see happening anytime soon.

It being a consequence of the system is not apparant to many people from what i've observed ...

That the monopolists controlling the health systems want to obliterate alternative options should be apparent. They attempted it too early with Codex Alimentarius, an attempt to internationalize the outlaw of all non sanctioned substances. They were a little more subtle with Obamacare, which results in a forced standard care. Pharma benefits by forcing, by government mandate, consumers to use their cures/treatments.

By advancing alternative medicine, this mostly serves to:
-provide pressure releases for those who continue to support the system
-provide doctors options for giving their patients pressure releases, while still maintaining mostly standard care
And, these serve to support the system that will eventually force standard, pharma care.

So i had to read this part again .... What would you propose? I dont seem to understand the thread properly perhaps as neither alternative options integraded into the regular health care nor the current situation seem to be acceptable if i understand you correctly.

The reason why i ask is that the sentence with "That the monopolists controlling the health system want to obliterate alternative ..." seem only to make sense after your reply:

Substances are modified or outlawed, and then reintroduced at a higher price as licensed treatment (prescription).

... Which ofc isn't good.

 

[grithin]

It being a consequence of the system is not apparant to many people from what i've observed ...

Economics is something a lot of people are inherently bad at, even more so than math. I tutored math and found most people were quite capable of understand math when it was taught differently. Economics, however, seems to have more of an IQ limitation.

seem only to make sense after your reply

My reply only details the current system.

What would you propose?

My previous effort was with Society Of Order, where I tried to get people to hand out 2nd amendment fliers. Changing the culture to reject federal overreach would allow additionally rejecting medical tyranny. But I wasn't successful. My final solution, when I get the time, is to make the Ordaism religion. That probably won't be for a while.
The purpose of this thread, however, is to convey why I restrict what information I reveal on health topics and to see if anyone had useful contentions.