Skip to main content

If you want to understand a system, you need to think outside of it

If you want to understand a system you need to listen to someone who is intimately familiar with the system, yet apart from it.

People who operate within a system are usually blind to many aspects of the system, as they are taught to play a small role within it, not to understand its entirety.

Just as a fish may be ignorant of the fact that it exists in water, a person who operates as a component of a system may be unaware of broader issues to do with the system, or even it true aims.

So often we either assume or are told the purpose of our system, which turns out to be false.

We are purposely kept in the dark, playing our role for the overlords of the system to achieve their objectives, whether they be for good or evil.

Even if we conduct ourselves in an exemplary manner it does not mean we are contributing to a moral system.

The military system of each country comes to mind.

We may conduct ourselves with integrity, yet we may be contributing to the mass murder of innocent civilians.

Similarly with the medical system. We may be doing our best by patients according to the knowledge we hold, but we may be ultimately just a tool to push profitable, unhealthy products on a trusting clientele.

Examples such as Thalidomide and Vioxx show that the western, chemical-based system may fail dramatically, either through systemic failure, or due to callous indifference to the lives it touches, by those at higher management levels.

A worker within this system, such as a doctor, nurse or administrator, will be at a loss as to how these things happen, assuming changes will be made to stop them happening again, but they certainly don't think any harm caused by modern medicine could be deliberate.

This naive faith in the system of which they are part comes from a lack of knowledge of the basis of the system, and who it is set in place to serve.

Those who set up a system may do so for other reasons than the ones they widely promote. They may claim philanthropy and benevolent motives while being inspired by darker, more selfish goals, indeed.

Only an independent investigator with no ties to the system is likely to discover the truth about a system and who and what it is set up to serve.

If these people share their views widely and come to the attention of those who gain from the system being viewed favorably, they will be mercilessly attacked and "discredited", particularly if they are seen as truly influential and able to sway public opinion.

This is why we see whistle blowers vilified and attacked in the mainstream media for daring to claim the emperor has no clothes and that a system is corrupt.

Public opinion is very important and jealously guarded by the servants of the system in question, and if the system's credibility is lost, then all working within the system will lose as well- lose income, jobs and social status.

Hence, many servants of the system will fight like wild animals against any perceived slight of that system, to keep it running along in the good books of public opinion.


Popular posts from this blog

The only meaningful science on vaccines...

Is missing.

What is that science?
Comparing children who receive various regimes of vaccines against those who receive none at all, for a wide variety of health outcomes, over the next 15-20 years of their life, and beyond.
Such studies are not done because they are deemed unethical.

Why unethical? 

Because it is assumed that childhood vaccines do more good than harm, and that the current childhood vaccine schedule is fine, and to deny children vaccines when they are presumed safe and effective would be an act of criminal negligence.
None, because it would be "unethical" to complete the studies that would prove this.

Catch-22, anyone?
Therefore, we don't know if these assumptions about safety and effectiveness are true or not.
And we never will, unless such comparative studies are done. 

And such studies would only be meaningful if conducted by someone without a dog in the fight- that is, not aligned with promoting or resisting community vaccine uptake.

And, as anyone…

Conflict is best avoided

Interpersonal conflict wastes valuable time and energy that could be better devoted to other, more fulfilling things.

Our energies are best spent creating a fulfilling life for ourselves and those we care about, not attempting to destroy another person, group or idea.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the opinions of others are irrelevant in terms of how we wish to live our lives, and how we wish to interpret reality.

That is, we are under no obligation to listen to others or respond to them in any way.
Our lives are our own to create, and no one else's!

If we share a physical space with others, or trade goods and services with them, we will need to come to agreements, but otherwise our life is our own to create, in any way we see fit.

If others don't share our views or support our choices there is no need to fight them on it.
Instead, we must discover what works best for us and practice it, while allowing others the same freedom.

Whole v component-part medicine

My response to a statement that all medicines that have proven themselves scientifically have become part of "mainstream" medicine.