Since reality has an almost infinite degree of complexity, any framework we create to define it is doomed to be an oversimplification which excludes critical elements of the picture. However, rather than admit the shortcomings of any given model, that gap in understanding is typically bridged by forcefully asserting the validity of the chosen narrative and selectively focusing on the instances which affirm the validity of the model. Because of this (particularly within politics), you will frequently find a large number of people who are utterly convinced their side is 1000% correct despite another large contingent holding a diametrically opposing view of reality.
Likewise, in medicine, a similar politicization of truth will occur where people will believe their (or their tribe’s) chosen therapy is effective regardless of all evidence to the contrary, and likewise that it is safe regardless of how much evidence exists to the contrary. For example, while going through 54 forgotten news clips, in which, the news media (prior to being bought out by pharmaceutical industry) would routinely report on the dangers of vaccination, I came across this poignant quote from Barbara Loe Fisher:
What’s scientific about that assumption, that every time something bad happens after vaccination it’s a coincidence? That’s not science, that’s politics.
Note: after I originally sent that article out, I unearthed a large number of additional clips not present in the original that were subsequently added in (and you should watch here when you have the time too as they show vaccine injuries are very real and have been with us for decades).
When diagnosing patients, if one’s goal is to get the patient better (rather than just put a diagnostic label on them and the accompanying prescription) a few major challenges emerge:
•First, the same underlying issue can manifest quite differently from patient to patient (e.g., the inflammation and blood clotting created by the COVID vaccines gave rise to dozens of different symptom presentations).
•Second, very similar symptoms can be caused by different agents—particularly those which create systemic inflammation and blood flow obstructions (e.g., Lyme disease and mold toxicity are commonly confused with each other).
•Third, while certain things are more likely to trigger chronic illnesses, less frequent ones can as well (e.g., I’ve seen more cases than I can count where the underlying cause of a patient’s illness was missed by both conventional and integrative practitioners due to a more common cause of that cluster of symptoms being focused on).
•Fourth, the same disease process can interact very differently with different patients (either due to their constitution, co-existing health issues, or what stage of healing they are in), and as a result, the “correct” therapy for a disease may not always be the correct one for them (which amongst other things is why I try to always know multiple ways to treat each ailment I come across).
•Fifth, in many cases, patients respond differently to the same therapies due to their constitution (e.g., sensitive patients cannot handle stronger treatments many others do very well with).
Because of this, patients will frequently see numerous providers without having any significant improvement from any of what they’re told to do, and in many cases, they simply have to hope to have the luck to end up in the office of a doctor who’s preferred treatment modality happens to be what their body needs. However, as that is quite an unsatisfactory situation, it will normally be “addressed” by the treating physician adamantly insisting their diagnosis and treatment is correct, and then when treatment failures inevitably emerge, attributing the failure to the patient—in essence no different from the process we observe throughout the political system.
Hellbound and Down 