Western Medicine Is Dead

achillea

Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
903
It died a long time ago aided by the advent of medical insurance. But it seems that a lot of integrity in many aspects of society has died along with medicine,
I think often of the fall of various and some mysterious societies like the Phoenicians, Babylonians, Sumerians, Aztecs, Greeks and Romans and wonder where they went and why. Was it the degradation of integrity and pursuit of self interest and greed or was it something else like medicine.
 

grithin

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2020
Messages
120
The article is pretty dumb. Of all things wrong about western medicine, he spends the first 3 paragraphs on the racism of school admissions. This is like an ant's perspective on the effects of a nuclear bomb. People are so amazingly stuck in stupid paradigms, not only do they have no clue of the bigger picture, they are about a million miles away from solutions.

Here, I'll give you a non-ant's perspective: The issue is the formation of oligopolies and monopolies (trusts). A methodology that has developed, in the last few hundred years, for this, is licensing


View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/fOjm0srtaQM/
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe

Putting the political topics in the article aside - yes, it is dead and one of the most unmistakable signs is that it is becoming increasingly non-voluntary. In other words, people increasingly refuse to freely "consume" it and govts all over the world scramble to create various rules/laws/coercion mechanisms in order to keep its usage high and profits flowing. Health services are about 20% of the GDP of most Western countries. It also drives indirectly additional 10%-20% of the GDP through related industry branches, suppliers, etc. No wonder govts are freaked out that it may go away and are desperately trying to mandate its usage/consumption by law.
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
"Not only have they adopted marxist ideas, but at the same time they’ve become heavily influenced by money from the pharmaceutical industry."

this statement is contradicting itself
 

grithin

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2020
Messages
120
yes, it is dead and one of the most unmistakable signs is that it is becoming increasingly non-voluntary.

By the same measure, income tax is dead. BTW, it's not.


govts all over the world scramble to create various rules/laws/coercion mechanisms in order to keep its usage high and profits flowing
No wonder govts are freaked out that it may go away and are desperately trying to mandate its usage/consumption by law

What insane perspective leads you to think govts are scrambling, are desperate, or are freaked out? Weren't you around for the obamacare role out? It was slow, methodical. I don't know if you had exposure with the EMR licensing side, but doctors were incentived, and software companies were incentivized to build and start using EMRs over a long period prior to mandates of obamacare. What about that looks like a scrambling reaction?

Why is it people like you constantly underestimate the IQ and planning of people in power? Is it because you just see the stupid puppet politicians?

The medical industry has been failing for decades on the matters of health in a wide range of topics including heart disease, cancer, etc. Even after over two decades of the internet, it literally took people being threatened with a mandated potentially fatal needle to get a sizeable response. And this response is still probably insignificant. People will be lulled back to sleep while people like Mercola are pressured to conform to the system.

And in the midst of news being virtually totally controlled, payment processors being anti-free-speech, the internet being very controlled (DDOS protection afforded mostly by anti-free-speech platforms), you think governments are freaked out?

I forgot to mention in my first response, the article is not only dumb by its content, the false hope sentiment of "western medicine is dead" is also dumb. It is like claiming victory by the person who's being shot because he's finally realized he's being shot.
 

Nemo

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
2,163
Here, I'll give you a non-ant's perspective: The issue is the formation of oligopolies and monopolies (trusts). A methodology that has developed, in the last few hundred years, for this, is licensing.

G*d d*mn it, grithin. I was happy for a second there.

They're still giving 500k tonsillectomies a year to U.S. kids:


Now the excuse is apparently Mad Cow:


A Scottish survey showed 95% of parents were glad they'd gotten their kids' tonsils cut out.

If only we could return to trepanning, think how happy they'd be.
 
Last edited:

Doc Sandoz

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
821
The main point is solid but all the religious and political claptrap is offputting and irrelevant. Give us evidence, not contentious rhetoric.
 

TheSir

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2019
Messages
1,952
"Not only have they adopted marxist ideas, but at the same time they’ve become heavily influenced by money from the pharmaceutical industry."

this statement is contradicting itself
Marxist ideas shield one from corruption?
 

Rick K

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2019
Messages
1,338
Putting the political topics in the article aside - yes, it is dead and one of the most unmistakable signs is that it is becoming increasingly non-voluntary. In other words, people increasingly refuse to freely "consume" it and govts all over the world scramble to create various rules/laws/coercion mechanisms in order to keep its usage high and profits flowing. Health services are about 20% of the GDP of most Western countries. It also drives indirectly additional 10%-20% of the GDP through related industry branches, suppliers, etc. No wonder govts are freaked out that it may go away and are desperately trying to mandate its usage/consumption by law.
You're correct about the drive to make it non-voluntary. Vaxes are a big part of the key as we become reliant on this intervention to survive. As to licensing; no mystery here: revenue. Even to own a business or conduct business requires a license and this simply puts you in a taxable category not endured by the enslaved, I mean employed. I had to list all my business assets including chairs and was taxed on all of it including inventory. States require licenses only as a revenue source; one is not required to verify good business practices or competence.
 

grithin

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2020
Messages
120
As to licensing; no mystery here: revenue

This misses the point almost entirely.

What happens when you outlaw the practice of medicine except by those who are licensed?
1. only those who seek to get licensed learn about the practice of medicine; everyone else remains unlearned
2. you create an artificial scarcity, which creates an artificial inflation of the education (high doctor incomes means people will willingly pay more for med school)
3. you control the content

Sure, licenses are added to a ton of businesses for the purpose of revenue generation from licensing fees, but for licensing law and medicine, it is very much a matter of ensuring ignorance (ignorance of medicine and the law), ensuring control, and increasing costs (artificial scarcity).

There are so many things you can sue the government for (so many violations of the constitution), but a wide ignorance of law by the general public, lawyers all vested in their law degree and credentials, oblivious juries, pretty much ensures you get almost nothing that disrupts the system.
 

Rick K

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2019
Messages
1,338
This misses the point almost entirely.

What happens when you outlaw the practice of medicine except by those who are licensed?
1. only those who seek to get licensed learn about the practice of medicine; everyone else remains unlearned
2. you create an artificial scarcity, which creates an artificial inflation of the education (high doctor incomes means people will willingly pay more for med school)
3. you control the content

Sure, licenses are added to a ton of businesses for the purpose of revenue generation from licensing fees, but for licensing law and medicine, it is very much a matter of ensuring ignorance (ignorance of medicine and the law), ensuring control, and increasing costs (artificial scarcity).

There are so many things you can sue the government for (so many violations of the constitution), but a wide ignorance of law by the general public, lawyers all vested in their law degree and credentials, oblivious juries, pretty much ensures you get almost nothing that disrupts the system.
My point remains: revenue. Licensing does not ensure competence. Even a board of peers may be far removed from competence or best practice. Licensing brings you into whichever club you've aspired to. Practicing medicine without a license is illegal but doesn't mean the individual is less competent; it only means you're not a part of the self celebrated group. I am not a licensed physician but that doesn't mean I can't and didn't learn my version of medicine. I am not hamstrung by the censure that comes with that license. In no way does a lack of license ensure ignorance just as having a license does not ensure competence. We are all capable of learning that which we require without sanction of others.
Doctors rarely get to control what they practice; that is governed by big pharma. A look into recent criminal penalties and threat of loss of said license for doctors prescribing Ivermectin and HCQ demonstrates this.
You said "everyone else remains unlearned" without a license. You might just take a look around this forum as there are some very competent people here.
 

grithin

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2020
Messages
120
States require licenses only as a revenue source
My point remains: revenue.

It's probably best that we don't continue discourse. Perhaps we can mutually ignore each other?

Your point that licenses are there "only" for states to benefit from direct revenue of licensing is simple and incorrect. It nearly entirely misses what I was describing, but I don't think you have the sense to understand the concepts I put forth


You said "everyone else remains unlearned" without a license. You might just take a look around this forum as there are some very competent people here.

Even if you don't take what I was saying to be a pattern of tendency, you can still literally interpret it to have a valid meaning: Those who aren't seeking a license to practice medicine don't go to med school. Similarly, you can detract from this thread by stating cases where people went to med school without subsequently practicing medicine.
 

Rick K

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2019
Messages
1,338
It's probably best that we don't continue discourse. Perhaps we can mutually ignore each other?

Your point that licenses are there "only" for states to benefit from direct revenue of licensing is simple and incorrect. It nearly entirely misses what I was describing, but I don't think you have the sense to understand the concepts I put forth




Even if you don't take what I was saying to be a pattern of tendency, you can still literally interpret it to have a valid meaning: Those who aren't seeking a license to practice medicine don't go to med school. Similarly, you can detract from this thread by stating cases where people went to med school without subsequently practicing medicine.
Thank you for pointing out how simplistic I am and that I'm just not gifted enough to understand your lofty concepts. Agree to ignore you. Only the overblown ego seeks to belittle others.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
It died a long time ago aided by the advent of medical insurance. But it seems that a lot of integrity in many aspects of society has died along with medicine,
I think often of the fall of various and some mysterious societies like the Phoenicians, Babylonians, Sumerians, Aztecs, Greeks and Romans and wonder where they went and why. Was it the degradation of integrity and pursuit of self interest and greed or was it something else like medicine.
Agreed.

You can just look at Arthur Andersen, an accounting firm that really did terrible accounting and fell in the 90s. The founder Arthur may have started with good intentions, but certainly it didn't take long for his firm to be corrupted and to become extinct. That is just an accounting firm, but the same thing happens to all institutions and on a larger scale - civilizations.

Even the church that says "it will stand through the test of time" does not seem like anymore than a Roman relic.

The article is pretty dumb. Of all things wrong about western medicine, he spends the first 3 paragraphs on the racism of school admissions. This is like an ant's perspective on the effects of a nuclear bomb. People are so amazingly stuck in stupid paradigms, not only do they have no clue of the bigger picture, they are about a million miles away from solutions.
He starts with that because he chooses to start with something that is even more relevant as this wokeness has been formalized by a woke illegitimate president, supported by all the institutions that we (forgive the license to include you) could not imagine to have become woke at the flip of a switch. So, I think it is not only not dumb, but speaks to a writer being perceptive of the current of the times, of popular culture, and of the zeitgeist. That is how a writer doesn't turn off readers by not being out of touch.

He chooses to start with the periphery, before focusing on the main subject.

The main point is solid but all the religious and political claptrap is offputting and irrelevant. Give us evidence, not contentious rhetoric.
Roosh is a reformed PUA and is now a Christian who has found God.

Take that away, and you still have a good message. What's offputting is you having a nonsensical allergic reaction to it.
 
Last edited:

PxD

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
402
"Not only have they adopted marxist ideas, but at the same time they’ve become heavily influenced by money from the pharmaceutical industry."

this statement is contradicting itself
Not really. Woke Marxists, as opposed to orthodox Marxists, are happy to profit and deal with corporations, as long as it helps move their cultural agenda (the holy trinity of race/sex/gender) forward.
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
Not really. Woke Marxists, as opposed to orthodox Marxists, are happy to profit and deal with corporations, as long as it helps move their cultural agenda (the holy trinity of race/sex/gender) forward.
its funny how that gets attributed to marx though. that's like someone eating a bottle of maple syrup a day and rubbing half a bottle of progesterone on their balls and calling it peating. Or taking estrogen for libido and calling it peaty. just so far from what they actually wrote
 

PxD

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
402
its funny how that gets attributed to marx though. that's like someone eating a bottle of maple syrup a day and rubbing half a bottle of progesterone on their balls and calling it peating. Or taking estrogen for libido and calling it peaty. just so far from what they actually wrote
It is what it is. Rightfully, wokeness should really be attributed to Gramsci and the rest of the Frankfurt School gang.

Marx gets stuck with it because they proclaimed themselves his disciples, and since he was dead at the time, he obviously had no possibility of rejecting them.

I mean, heck, fascism can be attributed to Marx. Mussolini himself stated that fascism is the upgraded/evolved version of socialism, by returning the profit incentive to the private sector and so creating an economic system that wasn’t totally dysfunctional.
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
It is what it is. Rightfully, wokeness should really be attributed to Gramsci and the rest of the Frankfurt School gang.

Marx gets stuck with it because they proclaimed themselves his disciples, and since he was dead at the time, he obviously had no possibility of rejecting them.
"If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a marxist" - Karl Marx

i'm not sure what he was referring to specifically, i think he disagreed with the political movement in his name at the time.

in terms of wokeness, i still think it's some sort of CIA/elite operation to distract from the banking industry and class struggle, exactly what marx himself was trying to point out. I don't know much about the frankfurt school, but from the one book i read from marcuse "one dimensional man" i certainly don't think was the spark of the wokeism. in fact marcuse seems pretty spot on here:

"The society of total mobilization, which takes shape in the most advanced areas of industrial civilization, combines in productive union the features of the Welfare State and the Warfare State. Compared with its predecessors, it is indeed a "new society." Traditional trouble spots are being cleaned out or isolated, dis- rupting elements taken in hand. The main trends are familiar: concentration of the national economy on the needs of the big corporations, with the government as a stimulating, supporting, and sometimes even controlling force; hitching of this economy to a world-wide system of military alliances, monetary arrange- ments, technical assistance and development schemes; gradual assimilation of blue-collar and white-collar population, of lead- ership types in business and labor, ofleisure activities and aspir- ations in different social classes; fostering of a pre-established harmony between scholarship and the national purpose; invasion of the private household by the togetherness of public opinion; opening of the bedroom to the media of mass communication."

So, maybe the rest of the frankfurt school was horrible, but that doesn't seem to me like the start of wokeism. Ray talked about the cia sponsoring prominent early feminist women and movements who championed for "working women" in order to protect and promote the ruling class. even now, I think a lot of the feminist movement is sponseeed by birth control companies like pfizer to sell estrogen pills. after the occupy wall street movement, the wokemovement took off, with everyone forgetting about big banks and instead about gender rights. definitely not what marx would have wanted
 
Last edited:

Nemo

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
2,163
Thank you for pointing out how simplistic I am...

Don't go there, Rick. Be patient with prickliness. Grithin is extremely smart and making a critical point.

We are in deep sh*t and must not underestimate the enemy.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom