A thoughtful Op-Ed
Scalability In Medicine
An exploration of the perverse economic incentives in the practice of medicine and the obstacles faced in treating COVID vaccine injures. - A MIDWESTERN DOCTOR
'I have always been fascinated by the subject of free will, and continually saddened by observing individuals choosing to relinquish the spontaneity they inherited as living conscious beings. In turn, I’ve tried to touch upon how predictable psychological patterning, external influences, and predefined thought patterns help to explain many of the abhorrent behaviors we’ve observed from the medical profession, the scientific authorities, and the general public over the last three years.
•Highlighting how the invisible public relations industry receives approximately 100 billion dollars each year to brainwash the public into obeying its sponsors.
How doctors’ perceptions of reality are shaped so that they cannot perceive “inconvenient” illnesses.
•How the harsh medical training each doctor goes through leaves them with an existential need to believe their practice of medicine is safe and effective (retained emotional patterning, such as that resulting from traumatic experiences, exerts an enormous influence over most people’s lives).
•How the current academic system trains people to forfeit their critical thinking and instead follow rigidly defined cognitive algorithms, which prevents most of those it trains from arriving at inconvenient conclusions while simultaneously zealously believing in each defense they provide for the orthodoxy.
One of the fundamental obstacles to embodying free will is which beliefs one chooses to navigate reality. Each axiom (foundational assumptions about reality) you follow inevitably restricts your perceptions and actions into falling into accordance with that axiom. Conversely, if you instead discard every belief you use to navigate reality with, life becomes almost impossible to navigate through, which hence, completely invalidates the merits of any philosophy which advocates discarding those axioms in your daily life.
I presently address this dilemma by doing my best to pick accurate beliefs while simultaneously being willing to temporarily put them aside on a case-by-case basis (which is often necessary for addressing complex medical conditions) and embracing the dynamic uncertainty you are forced to enter once you let go of your anchors to reality.
Unfortunately, the human mind tends to dislike experiencing the powerlessness that comes with acknowledging uncertainty. As a result, when many encounter a situation where their axioms fail them, rather than be humbled, they will respond by aggressively attempting to force the situation to conform to their beliefs.
I recently completed a series on the relationship between the gradual decline of critical thinking within our society, and contemporary medical controversies. A central point of that series is that the education process conditions each student to become boxed into a linear mode of thinking revolving around the axioms of the orthodoxy, and the more educated one is, the more aggressively one holds onto those axioms.
Many of the frustrating behaviors we’ve observed over the last two years have resulted from this conditioning. For example, this is why educated individuals often have the most difficulty understanding arguments which challenge the narrative; they are trained to only focus on identifying ways to dismiss an argument that questions any of their axioms rather than holding the mental space for hearing a divergent perspective.
Normally when this issue is observed, the close-mindedness and stubbornness of the orthodox party are viewed as a consequence of “ego,” and their behavior attributed to either a conscious attempt by egotistical individuals to protect their pride by not admitting fault, or a fearful ego’s attempt to protect itself from the shame of being wrong. I would, however, argue that there is a much more fundamental issue at work—the human mind has a great deal of difficulty functioning without axioms (along with some type of purpose to its existence) and will fight vigorously to protect the set of beliefs it has.'
In an age of purchased science, it is everyone's responsibility to be informed and make choices according to the evidence available. This means not following a narrative, public opinion, or self righteous poster who believe they know it all. So those who believe in the mainstream narrative by all means get vaccinated and follow your science, however do not smear others who think differently due to evidence they have observed. Following the money trail is always prudent and the truth will become self evident in many cases. Still it is up to the individual to make up their own mind and we don't need thought police on either side of an issue.
I presently address this dilemma by doing my best to pick accurate beliefs
Demonstrating that none of this is factual information it's what the author believes are "accurate beliefs". No science or logic involved, just a belief system based on their own assumptions. IOW, bullshit.
So, it is wrong to keep an open mind,
and resist changing it based on new information?
The context is important.
"I presently address this dilemma by doing my best to pick accurate beliefs while simultaneously being willing to temporarily put them aside on a case-by-case basis (which is often necessary for addressing complex medical conditions) and embracing the dynamic uncertainty you are forced to enter once you let go of your anchors to reality.
Unfortunately, the human mind tends to dislike experiencing the powerlessness that comes with acknowledging uncertainty. As a result, when many encounter a situation where their axioms fail them, rather than be humbled, they will respond by aggressively attempting to force the situation to conform to their beliefs."
@BDair Interesting. I didn't say that it's wrong to have an open mind and to resist change based on new information. Not even close. I have no idea what you read but "beliefs" are not "information", they are assumptions based on little or no evidence. If there is evidence there is no need for beliefs.
For the record, you didn't add "context" you added a word salad with no definitive point. Letting go of anchors to reality to address medical decisions is no better than praying to a make believe deity for medical advice.
I'm sorry. I just don't get it.
Note that the author calls themself a doctor but never identifies themself. Good chance it is propaganda that originated in a country that uses such garbage to harm the US and other Western countries. [medecon.org]
This article is a couple of years old but may help you understand.
While I fully support your choice and well as other to be vaccinated, the term "anti-vaxxer" is a narrative title designed to discourage critical thinking in the world of paid off science. While others may see me as an anti-vaxxer, I would tend to disagree. In my view, I have done the research and discovered the safety testing we all assumed was done by the 3 letter government agencies was not completed. The term safe & effective even for the old school vaccines was not provable because the studies that were required simply don't exist. The CHD sued under a FOIA request which discovered the safety studies were never completed even though the CDC claims they were done. Further, there are many studies showing unvaccinated children are much healthier than those who are partial and fully vaccinated. The CHD did a very thorough breakdown by disease/disorder and the truth is self evident. After reading many articles and real life stories, I see vaccines much like I see religion. It would appear that large corporations have discovered a profitable course using faith rather than true science to encourage people to buy their product. I see myself as a person seeking truth and not anti-anything, however, the religious control system as well as the pharmaceutical industry after careful review have proven to be lacking in logical basis for support of what they are selling. I have never seen such a product push before from all angles like we saw with the covid vaccine and the campaign must have worked because the $$$ trail is self evident with zero liability. The 40% increase in mortality as reported by the life insurance industry along with the new ASDS events should make truth seekers of all viewpoints stop and question the safe & effective claims.
This is a fairly honest assessment of the situation.