Blog Article: Fake And False Science Of Illnesses And Diagnoses (link). FB (link). For convenience, questions are copied below the response.
Response:
@ “… is vacciantion build on the simmilar principle as homeopathy / administering a small doses of alleged poison to treat the illness/”
I have some knowledge and personal experience with homeopathy. Based on this, I would say that they are not similar. To me, they are as similar to comparing electric and gas-powered vehicles because they both require a (small) battery or electric power to start the car. So, they both could be considered electric-powered. However, they are very different in operation – there is no comparison.
Concerning “small doses/amount of alleged poison,” I do not think homeopathy injects poison. On the other hand, I am certain, based on what is available in the literature about vaccines, that they are not in small amounts (compared to homeopathic doses) but certainly significantly large amounts of filth/gunk (potentially poison). I would not suggest anyone take it, considering the science/chemistry aspect of it.
@ “… how someone know that chemical substances are effective if people can get well even without using them.”
This is what one learns or should learn when getting training in the science/chemistry of medicines (body chemicals). This is where the biggest problem is: doctors assume and claim to have such training and expertise; however, in reality, they do NOT study the science and end up making false claims about the science of medicines and/or diagnoses.
Doctors should be able to understand the issue/illness based on symptoms, followed by confirmation with testing, and to proceed accordingly. The test should be able to indicate deviation and its severity in normal physiological activity by, most likely, a higher or lower concentration/activity of some chemical ingredient or its process (reaction). This needs to be addressed accordingly by supplying or removing possible affected chemical components (s). The test should indicate the body’s recovery to normal status.
However, current medical practice takes the test results and adjusts them. For example, considering the high blood pressure (bp) or sugar levels, they will prescribe medicines (non-physiological chemicals) to reduce the test READINGS to bring to a certain self-determined level, which may or may not be relevant to a person’s health.
So, often, it brings the readings to the “desired” level, but does it resolve the issue (cause) of higher sugar/bp? Of course not. The problem would remain, and possibly a new one would arise. For example, the kidney may start functioning poorly, increasing or decreasing urine volume.
In general, the medical practice would consider it an isolated/independent issue and will prescribe another medication to adjust the urine volume, but usually do not acknowledge the issue might have been caused by the use of sugar/bp medication.
Now, the patient will have two medications (non-physiological chemicals), and so on. The situation would worsen gradually, sometimes even abruptly. No wonder there are health crises, particularly in countries heavily dependent on modern allopathic “medical research” and medicines.
On the other hand, what really should have happened is that the cause of high sugar/bp should have been established, and that should have been treated to bring back the sugar/bp to the desired level – IF NEEDED. But it does not. That is why people, including doctors, would never know or can establish if the patient is cured or died with the treatment or their situation.
The irony is that people and doctors believe that they are developing and prescribing medications for the illness by treating the cause, ASSUMING if the symptoms disappear (or the test reading comes to the desired level), the cause must have been addressed (important to understand).
Although they would not accept this view publically, this is fundamentally their position, which is what medical science is. It is nothing more than their personal opinions and beliefs.
This brings me to the rest of your comment or question, which, in reality, is about clinical trials. Clinical trials are a large and complex topic to discuss in a short space; therefore, I will address them separately soon. However, as a short version, I can say it is another big hoax by doctors and medical experts. In reality, it is a test, but in violation of the most fundamental assumptions/requirements of test developing/conducting practices, especially on the statistical basis, as reflected by your statement,
“And comparing groups of people is also not objective and problematic because every person is in different shape or form, in addition, studies can be easily manipulated by selecting the right individuals or abusing statistics.”
Indeed, current clinical trial practices do not respect statistical principles or assumptions (variance or variability). Therefore, it would not be wrong to say that most, if not all, clinical outcomes/inferences have to be bogus or at least unscientific or scientifically invalid.
Questions from FB (link)
“I have 3 questions if i can, is vacciantion build on the simmilar principle as homeopathy / administering a small doses of alleged poison to treat the illness/ and second – how someone know that chemical substances are effective if people can get well even without using them. I am referring to the fact that a person with the flu will recover even without using medication, but the same applies to other diseases. Some researchers conduct embarrassing studies where they then describe this recovery as the effects of a vaccine or the administration of another drug, but it is practically impossible to verify whether a person would have died without the drug or whether he would have gotten worse, and whether people were cured as a result of the administration of a chemical substance or would have been cured anyway through their own processes. Verifying whether a drug is effective if the disease does not have a 100 percent mortality rate or if it cannot cure the symptoms in a short time is, in my opinion, very problematic if not completely impossible. Because the researcher never knows whether a given individual was cured on his own or thanks to the drug. And comparing groups of people is also not objective and problematic because every person is in different shape of form, in addition, studies can be easily manipulated by selecting the right individuals or abusing statistics. Thirs question is. How can any ili be a contagious communicable disease if you can get it in absolute isolation in space station?“