Bob wrote that “Ebola is a hoax.” He was joking. He was making fun of hysteria.
Ebola is not a hoax. It is a real river in Africa. In the 1970s, some people died in the area near that river and then the way they died was named after the Ebola river.
Since then, an average of about one hundred people per year have died from the medical process called “Ebola” (at least that is what has been reported and publicized). Is that a lot of people? It is a lot more than a dozen, right?
I have seen reports showing that around 20,000 people commit suicide each year in the US. If you do not stop what you are doing right now to donate a few hours of your time every week to a campaign for suicide awareness & prevention, then you are probably… an American.
But back to the disease process called Ebola, it can allegedly be spread through very limited ways, like involving certain bodily fluids. In that respect, it is similar to the HIV virus & the medical label “A.I.D.S.”
But should people ever be skeptical of new information? What about skeptical of old, familiar presumptions?
I recently read medical research from 1991 establishing that simple breathing exercises were 100% effective in promoting the health (reducing the symptoms) of people with HIV/ AIDS. The same kind of exercises have “cured” people of asthma and panic attacks and many other diagnostic labels.
What is asthma? It is a process involving hyperventilation and a lack of oxygen in the brain cells.
In fact, when there is a lack of oxygen in brain cells, then that interferes with the brain’s ability to generate electromagnetic current (“energy”). So, there are a few consequences of a “starving” brain and also a few mechanisms for remedying that.
If someone is underwater with no oxygen-rich air to breathe, that could be a problem. However, the more common problem in modern medical contexts is that 90% of people do not have “enough” carbon dioxide in the bloodstream (from too much breathing AKA “mild” hyperventilation). I speculate that it is because they are chronically stressed/ tense/ scared/ traumatized/ zombified.
How is the “behavior” of asthma replaced with the behavior of “healthy breathing?” There are some simple exercises to gradually strengthen certain muscles and to slow down the breathing enough to raise the CO2 levels in the bloodstream. (Check out http://www.intellectbreathing.com or http://www.normalbreathing.com for more info.)
Since 90% of people that were measured have been observed to breath at least twice as heavily as would be considered healthy or “normal,” that percentage is far too high (relative to the tiny fraction of people with HIV) to then say that HIV causes mild hyperventilation or that mild hyperventilation causes infecton by HIV. However, if all of the symptoms that are called AIDS disappear because of a simple short breathing exercise, then we can conceive of AIDS as one type of complication of mild hyperventilation (among many others).
As long as somone has adequate oxygen levels in the brain, what if the presence of the HIV virus itself has NO MEDICAL CONSEQUENCE? When oxygenation of brain cells is too low, there are a variety of problems- from mild to severe. However, because of the worship of diagnostic labels like AIDS and Ebola by the western masses, they may panic at the sound of those words. They do not conserve their breath. They do not keep calm.
So, when millions or billions of people have low oxygen levels in their brains, then isn’t it obvious that they make demons out of words? They worship AIDS like it is a living demon that possesses organisms and causes illness or death. Is that true? Or, is HIV just one of many viruses that, when an organism’s cells are starving for oxygen due to mild hyperventilation, the presence of the virus can complicate the already compromised health of that organism (such as by produing the EFFECT labeled as A.I.D.S.)?
(Note that the most well-established method for promoting health is called “the placebo effect,” which is basically a reference to any method of tricking a patient in to relaxing their normal level of distress/ hyperventilation. Why doesn’t the placebo effect work in every case? Because some people are not actively sabotaging their immune system with unconscious habits of compromised breathing.)
Here is where we start to get to some interesting issues involving language. People tend to think that there are fundamentally distinct realities, like the reality of carbon and the reality of oxygen. That is absolutely false.
Carbon can change in to something else. “Brain-dead chemists” may be unaware of physics, but it is still common knowledge amongst nuclear physicists that carbon is a relatively stable compound. By compound, I mean that it is made of smaller components.
“Carbon fusion” is the name for the process of carbon combining with hydrogen to form nitrogren. Nitrogen is not a carbohydrate made of some atoms of cabron and some atoms of hydrogen. When nitrogen is created out of carbon and hydrogen, the two stable compounds that were present at first are later absent. They transform in to a new form (creating a new compound through a significant re-organizing of the components of the two prior compounds).
First, there are two distinct stable fields of energy (forms of energetic matter) called carbon and of hydrogen. Then, the two distinct fields (compounds) “fuse” to make a new field (compound form) that displays certain qualities which chemists like to label as “nitrogen.”
So, nitrogen is just a label for one distinct stable pattern of… energy. By the way, the pattern of Nitrogen can shift to Oxygen, then back to Nitrogen, then back once again to Carbon.
Next, where does most hydrogen on the earth come from? From solar radiation. Because we think of waves and particles as two isolated realities, we can get confused about the radiating of hydrogen, but that is actually kind of odd that it would be confusing.
Let’s simplify. Waves and particles can be thought of as two distinct types of behaviors.
Carbon and oxygen can be thought of as a two stable patterns of energy. If you add a certain kind of energy to carbon in a certain way, then the new pattern is called nitrogen.
In other words, there is nothing fundamental or eternal about the pattern of energy behaving as carbon. Carbon is just relatively stable (and Carbon-13 is distinct from Carbon-14 in part because one is more stable than the other).
Those two types of carbon decompose at different speeds (with different half-lives). By decompose, we mean to say that they are composites. They are compounds. They are stable compounds made of stable sub-atomic fields of energy (such as electrons, neutrons, and protons).
Matter is an aspect of these energetic fields (which are sometimes referenced as “particles”). Matter is not independent of energy (not a distinct isolated reality).
Mass refers to the amount of attractive energy (gravitational force) created by a certain field. So, we can measure the mass of an energetic field (such as an electron “particle” or an atom of Carbon or a molecule of Carbon Dioxide).
Mass is once again not a fundamental reality. Mass is an effect. Mass is even a process or “behavior” (as in an effect that causes other effects).
Let’s briefly address the issue of “particles” appearing and disappearing. For instance, when neutrinos and anti-neutrinos “appear and disappear,” that is because they are unstable fields (unstable patterns of behavior).
Carbon (such as “carbon-12”) is a much more stable field. So, carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14 are similar but distinct aggregates of energy. They have similar yet distinct properties. For instance, the property of mass (or material stability) is slightly different for carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14.
Again, mass is just a property of lasting energetic fields. Some energetic fields can last for a decade (if not disrupted) and other types of fields would never last for an entire second because they are so unstable.
All that finally brings me back to carbon dioxide. That is a label for a molecular compound made of one part carbon and two parts oxygen.
In other words, carbon dioxide always contains oxygen. They are not fundamentally distinct realities. The conceptual model of distinct realities is in fact hysterical (as in unintelligent or delirious).
There are a variety of dimensions, such as length, height, weight, density, temperature, and so on. There are also a variety of distinct perspectives, such as physics and anatomy.
When a biophysicist looks at living tissue, they might note “there is a pH of 6.94 in that tissue, which of course totally impairs the tissue’s ability to utilize oxygen because the electrons that are needed in order to form new electromagnetic valance bonds are too strongly attracted to the excess of protons (which we have measured to be excessive at the precise level known as a pH of 6.94).” That is a valid interpretation. That is very measurable. Every part of that statement can be tested for accuracy.
When someone who is not very competent in physics but very familiar with anatomy looks at the same tissue, they might say “that is a cancer tumor.” That is also a valid interpretation. However, it lacks the precision of the statement of the physicist.
If someone were to translate all of that in to a few different languages, all of that could still be valid constructions in language. They could all be useful in some way.
Every perspective is also limited. One perspective may be concise but vague. Another perspective may be precise in one aspect but misses a lot from the bigger picture.
The interpretation that produces the most profit for a business may not be the interpretation that promotes health with great efficiency. Each perspective naturally creates interpretations (and mesaurements) that are in accord with the motives and presumptions of that perspective.
Modern medicine is reasonably effective at identifying various kinds of symptoms through precise testing. One possible problem with modern medicine is the low level of competence in the science of physiology. (Most MDs will be not just ignorant but confused by why a certain biochemical effect will happen 90% of the time but not the other 10%.)
If they simply did not know, that would be mere ignorance. However, if they thought that they knew something (something which observations were clearly contradicting), that misperception or misinterpretation produces confusion. That is precisely what happens that often leads to hysterical arguing: “Your little theory that cholesterol is made by the liver to promote health is insulting because it contradicts my vilification of cholesterol as a demon that must be worshiped with attention and then ritually attacked.”
An MD may experience confusion, shame about the confusion, and then hysteria. What appears simple to a physicist may be a mystery to an MD- or even confusing and threatening. Since biochemistry is really just a specific subcategory of physics, a physicist may look at the same data (or same patient) and instantly recognize what is “really” going on. An MD may be “blinded” by their conceptual model of worshiping cholesterol as a demon.
So, in addition to the issue of incompetence in physiology amongst the medical priesthoods, there is also the related issue of arrogant hysteria. They may be distressed at the idea of learning something new, especially if it contrary to some religious dogma that they have believed and also have publicized for decades (sincerely but inaccurately).
When a person says “that effect is incurable,” they may mean that they are ignorant of how to stop producing that effect. However, most MDs do not even relate to diagnostic labels as effects. They may presumptively relate to certain diagnostic labels as causes. That simple error can lead to a lot of confusion, a lot of embarrassment, and, eventually, a lot of learning.