Patrick Herbert, Contributor Waking Times
I am not a confrontational person, but I never back down from a challenge. I frequently embrace the opportunity to debate, and I will debate anyone over anything. Debate helps one challenge their own internal store of knowledge while also offering an opportunity of growth for all individuals involved. All of this, of course, wholly depends on if the participant has an open mind, and I have discovered through my willingness to engage that many do not.
This is most evident when you take the debate to those educated in the Rockefeller-Carnegie school of medicine. They are right, you are wrong, and there is no debate on the subject.
I was recently challenged to an online debate by a person who, going under the pseudonym “Chin” (for the record, I always use my real name), was inclined to tell me that my conclusions were wrong when it comes to a discussion of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. This person went so far as to suggest that they were actively engaged in the process of researching a cure for the virus and the disease that it supposedly causes. I do not know if that is true or not, as the individual in question is hiding behind a pseudonym leaving me unable to obtain any details on the individual.
From my understanding, based on everything that I have read and watched, there is still a lack of evidence to suggest that a “virus” (a non-living packet of information) causes disease. Where some claim there is evidence to suggest that this may be the case, others such as Dr. Andrew Kaufman explain, rather eloquently, that correlation does not equal causation. And then they back it up with their own conclusions derived from their own research.
When it comes to this discussion, it is worthwhile to consider the evolution of what we call modern medicine and why those indoctrinated through the American Medical Association (AMA) believe they are right and everybody else is wrong. The Rockefeller-Carnegie school of thought paints alternative medicine as “quack medicine” because it doesn’t align with the dictates of the “professionals” who preach their version of “medical science” to those who pay large sums of money. Also, they can’t turn a massive profit off of it.
There will always be pushback against the Rockefeller-Carnegie school of thought. Researching it, it becomes evident that Rockefeller philanthropy was anything but and was founded on the premise that there was no money to be made in natural medicines or cures because, they claimed, they were ineffective. That modus operandi is patently false.
If you think nature is ineffective, go and take a walk through a forest and observe everything that you see. It wouldn’t be there for you to experience if it wasn’t effective. Beneath each tree and plant is a network of roots that continually exchange microbes with each other in a communal way to sustain growth and development and maintain proper nourishment. That is the natural way and it is incredibly efficient.
From my understanding, the foundation for the AMA is built on the premise that nature is less efficient than a toxic combination of chemical cocktails that emerged from a lab and are packaged in a factory using cheap labor. This mentality has dictated every development of theirs coming thereafter.
The evolution of the AMA was controlled through finance, where those that played the game reaped the rewards and those who didn’t went broke and were discredited through the control of medical publications. Human experience is one of relativity and we are inclined to believe that which has been relative to our own education and experience. The other perspectives, or other narratives, are rarely considered or mentioned, thus rarely discussed.
So how, without reasonable debate, can one be so sure that those who come from that education model are right and everybody else is wrong? This is a fair question. Those of us looking at the other data have to contend with those who were educated in a way in which alternative information was excluded and demonized. There is no critical thinking if there is no challenge and no debate, just indoctrination, and many in the mainstream practice of medicine are by this way indoctrinated, believing that they are right and everybody else is wrong.
While I did appreciate the debate with “Chin”, I would never just believe him simply because he says that I am wrong and he is right. But that is exactly the mentality those indoctrinated in that school of thought express in, well, just about everything that they do and say. They don’t like a challenge. To them it is simple. You are wrong. They are right. End of story.
Ultimately, our debate was censored by the moderators of the comments section at NBC-affiliate KPRC (News 2 Houston). This isn’t much of a surprise, as they censor me all of the time.
With the rise of Naturopathic medicine, the financial means by which industries in big medicine, such as big pharma, depend on is challenge by the evidence that natural cures work: that nature and thus natural treatments and the body have a symbiotic relationship that cannot be denied or replaced by chemical combinations.
A pill-for-an-ill can kill. Nature intends to grow, preserve, and persevere. These are just the facts, ma’am.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment