THE DISEASE OF SPECIFICITY

The empirical, sensory, sciences are like a donkey loaded with books, or like the makeup woman's makeup. It washes off. But if you lift the baggage rightly, it will give joy. Don't carry your knowledge-load for some selfish reason.   Rumi

In an article for Childrens Health Defence entitled The Injection Fraud Catherine Austin Fitts remarks ‘A colleague once told me how Webster’s Dictionary came about. Webster said that the way the evildoers would change the Constitution was not by amending it but by changing the definitions—a legal sneak attack.’

Later she observes ‘We need to stop allowing these concoctions (so called vaccines) to be referred to by a word that the courts and the general population define and treat as medicine and protect from legal and financial liability.’

See https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/editorial/the-injection-fraud-its-not-a-vaccine

INDETERMINACY

Somebody pointed out to me an interesting correlation between the word ‘spell’ and the verb ‘to spell’. When we make words what are we doing? We are casting spells....

That is we are creating images and metaphors which don’t necessarily relate to anything real – to anything that actually is. We are making an imaginary construct – a symbol. Every time we create a word. And if we’re not very careful it doesn’t take too long before we are mistaking the word that we’ve created for the reality it was supposed to denote.

This is the true meaning of Plato’s allegory of the cave whereby we are all trapped inside a cave watching the shadow of reality reflected on the wall behind us and oblivious to the fact that reality doesn’t belong inside the cave at all.

Giving a name may make it possible to point out a definable something but it is often at the cost of alienating us from the thing denoted

This is how we have literally created diseases. Does anybody truly believe that polio, or AIDS or hepatitis B didn’t exist before these conditions were given a name? Has anybody ever questioned whether these conditions actually exist at all?

Well actually there are people who have done just this - the likes of Stefan Lanke, Thomas Cowan and Andrew Kaufman, all of whom have quickly been dismissed as ‘unscientific’ cranks – which doesn’t mean they don’t have a valid point to make.

What I am aiming to do on this website is prove that far from being unscientific cranks these are the people carrying the torch of truth and it is the medical establishment that denigrates their efforts that needs to be charged with egregiously misleading the general public with theories such as Pasteur’s Germ Theory that are demonstrably false.

THE PROBLEM OF NOMENCLATURE

Jon Rappoport has written:

"No need to isolate the new virus, we have its genetic sequence": Really?

"Isolate" means: "There it is, we see DIRECT evidence of it, it's not attached to anything else, it's not possibly hidden in a glob of cellular material, it's not just a piece of some decaying old virus, it's not a random chunk of DNA or RNA, it's not a Maybe floating in a soup of cells in a dish, it's not an assumption based on what we're predisposed to find..."

The headline of this article is a typical defense offered to "prove" researchers actually discovered a new pandemic virus, SARS-CoV-2.

It's laughable.

They have the genetic sequence of the virus?  Well, where did they get it?  From the man in the moon?  An old 10,000-dollar bill in Bill Gates' wallet?

See https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/08/25/no-need-to-isolate-new-virus-we-have-its-genetic-sequence

The whole edifice of the Western medicine paradigm is built on Pasteur’s Germ Theory, which in turn is built on the notion of specificity, that is the notion that every pathogen can be given a name and once having can be given a name can be treated – or rather exterminated.

Somewhere the poet Rainer Maria Rilke declares we are here ‘principally for naming’...

And this certainly is what human beings appear to do best. From the first moment that we come to consciousness and enunciate our first words – usually Mama or Dada – we start a process that appears to be endemic to human consciousness, namely that of naming everything that comes into our purview.

This is the distinctively human, no other creature does it.

Our entire civilisation has developed through this capacity for naming and identifying. This is what we learn from our parents, what we learn to do at school, how we gather academic qualifications, how we learn to build ourselves careers and survive in the world.

We learn to be articulate. And to be articulate means to have a name for everything that we want to discuss in our lives.

But this naming has its limits

And in the West, and particularly in the Western scientific paradigm, we are not willing to acknowledge these limits. Indeed we dismiss any such attempt as Woo-hoo - mystical hogwash. We pride ourselves on our tough minded rationalistic materialism. Listen to Richard Dawkins if you want to see what I mean.

So this tough minded attitude critically limits what it is permissible for us to perceive or discuss.

If it can’t be perceived and labelled it cannot be discussed.

This is the essential problem underpinning the Western medical paradigm

We are not willing to discuss anything that cannot be given a label.

It was Florence Nightingale who pointed out that you cannot identify diseases in the same way that you can identify cats and dogs. But we refuse absolutely refuse to accept this; because if we can’t label it, if we can’t give it a name. we can’t discuss it...

In her book Dissolving Illusions (pp. 565-566 Kindle Edition) Suzanne Humphries illustrates this perfectly when reviewing the different names given to smallpox. She quotes from an article by Charles V. Chapin, “Variation in Type of Infectious Disease as Shown by the History of Smallpox in the United States,” publishes in The Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 13, no. 2, September 1913, p. 173:

During 1896 a very mild type of smallpox began to prevail in the South and later gradually spread over the country. The mortality was very low and it [smallpox] was usually at first mistaken for chicken pox or some new disease called “Cuban itch,” “elephant itch,” “Spanish measles,” “Japanese measles,” “bumps,” “impetigo,” “Porto Rico scratches,” “Manila scab,” “Porto Rico itch,” “army itch,” “African itch,” “cedar itch,” “Manila itch,” “Bean itch,” “Dhobie itch,” “Filipino itch,” “nigger itch,” “Kangaroo itch,” “Hungarian itch,” “Italian itch,” “bold hives,” “eruptive grip,” “beanpox,” “waterpox,” or “swinepox.”

See https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dissolving-Illusions-Disease-Vaccines-Forgotten/dp/1480216895

Well we could be tempted to remark how extraordinary that so many conditions could suddenly all be identified as the one disease – smallpox.

The truth we find hidden in this is that every disease is only what it is to the person who suffers from it and the doctor would do well to remember that. The name is irrelevant.

You can classify diseases according to related symptoms; but if you don’t know what’s causing the symptoms you won’t have a clue how to treat it.

The disease name is a name only for a condition that has developed in the organism over a period of time due to environmental stressors both from within and without. A disease is not a thing, an entity to be battled against. It is an indication of an imbalance that needs to be addressed. The Chinese have known this for millennia.

We’ll be seeing on this website how many diseases have been re branded and re named in order to make it appear as though a given treatment – usually vaccination - has been successful in eradicating it.

Diseases can no more be eradicated than the race of Jews or the Arabs or the Blacks, or whoever you decide has been at the root of the ills in your society, can be eradicated. The only way to eradicate a disease is to ensure every human being on the planet has adequate shelter, hygiene, nutrition, clean air to breathe, absence of unnecessary stress etc. and even then you can’t eradicate disease. Because you can’t predicate for the irrational in Man – that which doesn’t necessarily choose what is best, that needs to choose the opposite in order to find out what life is really all about.

Antoine Bechamp understood very clearly the problem of nomenclature. When it comes to disease there is a term to denote the classification of diseases and that is Nosology. In The Blood Bechamp wrote

There is an implication to be found in the statement of Surgeon Verneuil, though probably not meant by him, to which assent must be given when understood. It is TRUE that there is no such THING as tetanus, small pox. syphilis, etc., as is implied by the general use of nosological terms. Disease is not a thing, an entity: it is a condition, and the error of regarding the condition of disease as an entity has confirmed, where it has not originated, much of the prevailing erroneous treatment of the sick.
    Nosological terms have a use; it is that of bringing to the mind of the physician a group of pathological symptoms, which may or may not be present in the case of the patient under consideration; from them, when present, the diseased condition of the patient can be recognized and treated. Unfortunately, through not understanding this truth, attempts are frequently made to treat, not the patient, but the name, which has been given to a collection of morbid symptoms.
    A broken limb is a thing; the inflammation which results from it is a condition, and if gangrene ensues the gangrene is not a thing, but a condition to be taken into consideration with all the other symptoms in the treatment of the patient. The surgeon, Verneuil, had probably a glimmering perception of this truth, but he misapplied it, for his theory and practice, as a physician, and the theory and practice of nearly all modern medicine assume that the condition to be treated is a thing having a name and this name is treated instead of the patient.

See https://archive.org/details/the-blood-and-its-third-element

Western medicine does not treat the patient; Western medicine treats the name we have given to the symptoms that the patient is exhibiting. This means our entire system of medicine is symptom orientated.

And this is a huge mistake.  Since symptoms are the body’s attempt to regulate itself we are all the time preventing the body from healing itself and insisting on our superior capacity for doing so.

Now I would suggest that this is entirely responsible for the stalemate in the development of medical science in dealing with chronic disease conditions. We are trying to give a name to something that is un-nameable  - and we don’t have the humility of the old Hebrews who refused to enunciate the name of God – because such a thing would be a blasphemy.....we are convinced that the only way to achieve anything is to keep on naming ad infinitum.

The human capacity for naming is a tool – something that we may use like a jigsaw or a mathematical square. It allows us to separate out the constituent parts of the universe in which we find ourselves; but it never seems to have occurred to us that beyond a certain point it simply isn’t possible to separate out Life into its constituent parts.

The splitting of the atom seems to have convinced us that we can continue dividing life out and giving each new tiny particle a new name.

And the reason for this is that the act of naming gives us the illusion of having taken control of it. Is this not the whole point of our being here – to give names and take control....?

But as anybody who has ever taken time to read and study scientific papers will know there comes a point where the process of naming becomes a narcissistic exercise in its own right, an exercise that, far from allowing us to take control of what we’re talking about, only succeeds in building taller and taller walls of obfuscation. And the more you read scientific papers the more you realise that much of the time names are being given to things that are unnameable, to things that are inexplicable for a rationalistic perspective; there is a huge amount of ambiguity around what constitutes what.

UP UNTIL 1953 when Crick and Watson published their findings re DNA it was considered that life was merely occasioned by the coming together of simple chemical compounds. Suddenly it all got a great deal more complicated:

‘It turned out that DNA only has one job. Your DNA tells your cells how to make proteins: molecules that perform a host of essential tasks. Without proteins you could not digest your food, your heart would stop and you could not breathe.

But the process of using DNA to make proteins proved to be staggeringly intricate. That was a big problem for anyone trying to explain the origin of life, because it is hard to imagine how something so complex could ever have got started.

Each protein is essentially a long chain of amino acids, strung together in a specific order. The sequence of the amino acids determines the three-dimensional shape of the protein, and thus what it does.

That information is encoded in the sequence of the DNA's bases. So when a cell needs to make a particular protein, it reads the relevant gene in the DNA to get the sequence of amino acids.

It turned out that DNA only has one job

But there is a twist. DNA is precious, so cells prefer to keep it bundled away safely. For this reason, they copy the information from DNA onto short molecules of another substance called RNA (ribonucleic acid). If DNA is a library book, RNA is a scrap of paper with a key passage scribbled onto it. RNA is similar to DNA, except that it only has one strand.

Finally, the process of converting the information in that RNA strand into a protein takes place in an enormously elaborate molecule called a "ribosome".

This process is going on in every living cell, even the simplest bacteria. It is as essential to life as eating and breathing. Any explanation for the origin of life must show how this complex trinity – DNA, RNA and ribosome protein – came into existence and started working.’

See http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

And the name of the same observed phenomena is changing continually. For instance let’s look at how Ribosomes got their name. Ribosomes are described by Wikipedia as follows:

‘Ribosomes are macromolecular machines, found within all living cells, that perform biological protein synthesis (mRNA translation). Ribosomes link amino acids together in the order specified by the codons of messenger RNA (mRNA) molecules to form polypeptide chains. Ribosomes consist of two major components: the small and large ribosomal subunits. Each subunit consists of one or more ribosomal RNA (rRNA) molecules and many ribosomal proteins (RPs or r-proteins). The ribosomes and associated molecules are also known as the translational apparatus.’

which all sounds as though it’s a mechanical feature of a well oiled machine that we have broken down into its constituent parts....

The term "ribosome" was proposed by scientist Richard B. Roberts in the end of 1950s:

Here’s an extract from a book published in 1958 that will give an idea of how the label came about:

‘During the course of the symposium a semantic difficulty became apparent. To some of the participants, "microsomes" mean the ribonucleoprotein particles of the microsome fraction contaminated by other protein and lipid material; to others, the microsomes consist of protein and lipid contaminated by particles. The phrase "microsomal particles" does not seem adequate, and "ribonucleoprotein particles of the microsome fraction" is much too awkward. During the meeting, the word "ribosome" was suggested, which has a very satisfactory name and a pleasant sound. The present confusion would be eliminated if "ribosome" were adopted to designate ribonucleoprotein particles in sizes ranging from 35 to 100S.’

— Albert, Microsomal Particles and Protein Synthesis[9]

Roberts RB, ed. (1958). "Introduction". Microsomal Particles and Protein Synthesis. New York: Pergamon Press, Inc.

It can be seen that there is no agreement upon what a Ribosome actually is and the parameters defining it are entirely arbitrary

Bottom line is a Ribosome is a Ribosome because it is ‘a very satisfactory name and a pleasant sound’

In an online article on microorganisms we find a catalogue of ambiguities;

1 Archaea: Archaea, or archaebacteria, were once thought to be part of the bacteria family. However, recent research has shown that they are much different from eubacteria, and may even be more closely related to us than they are to modern bacteria.

2 Algae: Microscopic algae were once thought to be plants, but recent studies have shown that algae don’t fit into the plant family. Instead, these single-celled photosynthetic organisms are thought to be relatives of the lineage that led to land plants.

3 Other (that is unclassified microorganisms) There are many other microscopic organisms that scientists are struggling to neatly classify. Once, many microorganisms were lumped into one category called “protists,” but many scientists now believe this system was only useful for explaining that the organism didn’t fit into any other kingdom.

The kingdom “Protista” served as a sort of “miscellaneous” bin for eukaryotic organisms that scientists could not readily identify as plants, animals, fungi. The logic was understandable: when light microscopes are the only tool you have, most microorganisms look fairly similar to each other.

(Bit like Junk DNA)

Upon genetic analysis, however, many members of the kingdom “protista” turned out to be more closely related to these other groups than to each other!

See https://biologydictionary.net/microorganism

What becomes clear is that we’ve only just touched the surface when it comes to classifying microorganisms and there is a constant overlap

Most of the time we don’t know what we’re looking at and we’re plucking names out of a hat – names that will serve for today and tomorrow but may well be discarded the day after that.

And that’s fine. It is in the nature of science to want to give names to every phenomenon it encounters . Bechamp acknowledged this himself.

But to proclaim as we hear all too often that ‘the science is settled’ is absurd

Nothing is settled and anyway, since the whole science of virology is being practised under a faulty paradigm, namely the notion of mono-morphism – that every microorganism has only one form and one function - the question has to be asked how can we be so sure that we should be giving a fixed name to a manifestation that may well be something that is not fixed at all but something that is in a state of progression from one form and function to another....and this will never come to light until the whole erroneous paradigm is over hauled.

What is difficult to comprehend is why this notion of monomorphism is still adhered to when it clearly contradicts all the known facts about so called viruses and bacteria? The whole reason for the decline in efficacy of antibiotics is the fact that the bacteria have learned to out-smart the drugs. Same with vaccines. The whole reason the flu vaccine is so woefully inefficacious is it’s well known that flu virus mutates from year to year.

We have known this for decades.

But of course the whole medical edifice would crumble were it acknowledged that aiming to counteract a single pathogen at any one time is a fool’s errand.

This aligns with the fact that the discoveries of quantum physics have failed to have so little influence on the practical sciences.

Surely Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Bohr’s principle of complementarity and the whole non-determinacy of quantum physics should have told us something about life at the microscopic level, should have told us something about the way in which we might expect the invisible microorganisms that teem within us and without us to function.

Is it not supremely unscientific to continue practising science in a way that takes no cognisance of the fact that we now know at the quantum level life works in a way that is largely unquantifiable? That is impervious to our incessant need to analyse, dissect, quantify and name.

Most particularly is it not insanity to continue with no acknowledgement whatsoever of the observer effect – namely that merely by looking at a thing we change the way in which it functions?

The logical deduction from this must be that while we continue to set up experiments aiming to achieve a particular outcome sure as eggs is eggs we can guarantee that eventually we will get the outcome that we have been looking for.

Now this might serve well a prevailing paradigm and all those with vested interests in it; but it can hardly be said to be serving the best interests of science

It is in fact only another manifestation of the predictive programming that is used by Big Tech to control whole populations on Planet Earth.

It is my contention that when Wilhelm Reich said in The Bion Experiments on the Origin:

‘Admittedly, measurements and replicate experiments still have the last word in science. But when I see an amoeba stretching and the protoplasm flowing in it, I react to this observation with my entire organism. The identity of my vegetative physical sensation with the objectively visible plasma flow of the amoeba is directly evident to me.

I feel it as something that cannot be denied. It would be wrong to derive scientific theory from this alone, but it is essential for productive research that confidence and strength for strict experimental work be derived from such involuntary, vegetative acts of perception.’

See: Reich, Wilhelm. The Bion Experiments on the Origins of Life . Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Chapter 9 Location 1903

He was being far more scientific that the men in white coats in our laboratories today who declare they are being purely objective for in truth THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING as pure objectivity and the discoveries of quantum physics have proven this ‘scientifically’.

There is a natural equation between Science and the notion of objectivity – the two are supposedly synonymous.

But what is clear now is that since the observations of Niels Bohr and Heisenberg to be truly objective it is necessary always to take into cognisance the subjective experience of the observer

Any attempt to measure precisely the velocity of a subatomic particle, such as an electron, will knock it about in an unpredictable way, so that a simultaneous measurement of its position has no validity. This result has nothing to do with inadequacies in the measuring instruments, the technique, or the observer; it arises out of the intimate connection in nature between particles and waves in the realm of subatomic dimensions.

This is an absolutely crucial point. Newtonian physics works in the observable world – that is on the surface of things while Quantum physics works at the sub atomic level – that is at the level that cannot readily be perceived with our five sense, even with the assistance of electron microscopy.

It is my contention that all issues of health occur at this sub atomic level and the reason modern medicine is failing so spectacularly is it is attempting to apply the principles of Newtionian physics and Aristoteleian logic to the quantum field.

The whole notion of objectivity is inextricably bound up with the obsession with naming and the conviction that it is possible to be specific about every component of life. It isn’t. Yet this is the bedrock of the scientific method. It is not possible to investigate Life in this manner. Ergo it is not possible to investigate life scientifically using scientific method as currently constructed. Or it may be possible but it’s not possible to arrive at correct deductions

It could be argued that when we examine cells of the body we haven’t reached the quantum world. We’re only looking at the objective manifestations that should be answerable to, and often appear to be, answerable to the laws of classical physics; but what we are not taking into account is the fact that what we are looking at is living tissue and life is something that absolutely cannot be analysed at this level. Life ONLY exists at the quantum level.

The problem is compounded by the fact that most of the time science as practised by molecular biologists using electron microscopy, is only examining tissue that is already dying or dead; because it has been removed from a living organism and it is now in the process of decay. The thing that we call life has already departed from it

So the question arises. How is it possible to make deductions about life and living tissue from the investigation of dead matter?

Reich intuitively understood there is a critical distinction between the two; and when he acknowledged ‘The identity of my vegetative physical sensation with the objectively visible plasma flow of the amoeba is directly evident to me’, he was fundamentally arguing for a different definition of what scientific observation entails.

He was saying that you cannot merely observe with your eyes and your rational faculty; that what you see will be influenced by your entire plasmatic being – that is your way of existing in your own body.

Reich had a word for this. When somebody was alive in all their being and functioning to the optimum of their capacity he called it being ‘orgonotically charged’ – that is the individual was suffused with orgone – Reich’s word for the life force.

Now it is not necessary to buy into the concept of the orgone in order to understand what he was saying.

He was saying no more than that the way in which you are in yourself will dictate the way in which you perceive things.

This is the essence of Husserl’s concept of intentionality. Perception is not a passive act. It is an intentional act.

We all know if we are feeling bored and listless nothing much can interest us. We may be confronted by a stunning sunset but it leaves us totally cold

If however we are full of energy and enthusiasm having had a particularly good day at work or whatever we suddenly find ourselves overwhelmed by the beauty of the sunset. We experience what Abraham Maslow would have called a peak experience (this recognition is at the base of the life work of the British philosopher Colin Wilson – see my book COLIN WILSON AND THE OTHER MODE – Chapters on this website)

We cannot look at anything without colouring it with the way in which we feel about things – with our own visceral experience of life.

Now I am very clear that what I am talking about here would be dismissed as mystical nonsense by any hard-nosed western scientist – who equally would dismiss the observations of Wilhelm Reich and presumably the necessity of taking cognisance of the findings of quantum physics

But I do believe these observations are of the essence when reviewing the ‘disease of modern medicine’.

For the fact of the matter is science is only conducted largely (there are some notable exceptions such as Rupert Sheldrake, Nassim Haramein et al) by individuals who have been indoctrinated over a long and arduous training into a notion that they must entirely obliterate any notion of the subjective; they must entirely ignore anything that remotely could be called imagination; they must eradicate themselves from the equation and only record what they objectively perceive, regardless of what they think, what they feel, who they are, how they are; and most pertinent of all they must observe the strict parameters laid down by the paradigm that they subscribed to when they first entered upon their studies; in other words they must ensure that they never come up with anything that would upset the existing paradigm, that they will only ever discover anything new that will perpetuate the same old same old...