In science, worshiping dogma may be considered “unscientific.” In religion, conforming to the ritual protocol is normal. In business, conforming to protocol is also normal. In art, we can respect poetic protocols at the same time as violating them. Logic is something that we may play with in comedy, but we can, as part of the fun, violate the rules of logic in our use of language.
What is the field of medicine? Is it a science (like physiology)? Is it art? Is it business? Is it a religious tradition?
Dogma could mean “unexamined ideas” as in “familiar traditions.” What is medical dogma and how is it important?
Medical dogma includes, at it’s foundation, a particular way that patients are classified (prioritized), like for urgent intensive care (as in choking, trauma, severe blood loss) or for “elective” interventions (things like a cosmetic surgery that has no medical urgency).
In between would be things like “surgery for the removal of wisdom teeth.” There is no life-threatening situation, but there is an underlying medical complaint (in contrast to with elective cosmetic surgery in which someone simply says “I think I would like to invest in a facelift.”)
Another important category is “dead” as well as “still alive technically, but probably beyond our capacity to save.” Again, the FOUNDATION of medical dogma (as in rituals of medical practice) is to classify patients as noted above.
So, the background subject that led to this commentary (which is not stated in this comment until now) was the category of “mental illness.” What does that mean FUNCTIONALLY? The function of someone making that diagnosis, at least originally, was “first, this is not a life-threatening situation and, second, we diagnostic professionals really do not know what to do about it.”
They could categorize things as “stage 2 or stage 3” as well as note “depression” as distinct from “visual hallucinations,” but the real function of the whole category of “mental illness” was to basically say “we can warehouse, these folks, but we really don’t know how to help them and it is not a priority to do so.” That is in contrast to something like scurvy, in which the situation was urgent but there was no comprehension of physiology to give an intelligent treatment protocol. So, someone with scurvy would be warehoused as well but with more concern for issues like contagion (not an issue for mental illness) as well as impending death.
On to my particular interests, what is “scurvy?” It is a label for convenient categorizing. Scurvy does not cause scurvy. Scurvy is just a label.
What is “cancer?” It is a label for convenient categorizing. Cancer does not cause cancer (or acidic pH or tumors). Cancer is just a label FOR A PRE-EXISTING EFFECT.
In particular, is cancer a living organism that attacks another organism, as in possessing it and then spreading or attacking different organs? No. That is simply false- or at least grossly imprecise.
When I say that modern medicine is a religion of demon worship, I am not joking. I am also not condemning that religion or it’s priesthood (although I may criticize the priesthood, but just not for the fact that they are a priesthood of demon worship). Cancer is presented (by many in that religion’s priesthood) as a living demon that possesses another entity and then the so-called cancer (which is just a label) is “worshiped.” Again, the label of cancer is ritually worshiped.
The label itself causes stress and even terror for many people. Further, THAT IS THE DESIGN OF THAT RELIGION.
The religion is not specifically designed for promoting health. Again, modern medicine (which is a religion) is not specifically designed for promoting health. So, to assess it SOLELY on the basis of how well it promotes health may be naive or even “disrespectful.”
However, we can assess any “science” solely on the basis of how well it (a particular set of scientific models) can be used to promote health. That may just be inappropriate when assessing the FDA or a particular MD.
Why? Because the MD is operating within the context of swearing an oath within their priesthood. Their loyalty to the priesthood (as in to the FDA) really IS important to their CAREER as a licensed priest of the religion of modern medicine. (Ask Dr. Andrew Weil, Milton Erickson, etc….)
In other words, an MD swears an oath to respect an institution and it’s dogmas (which can change). MDs who disrespect the FDA or the CDC may face serious consequences- perhaps more serious than for an unlicensed person.
Is it “paranoia” to be considerate of possible negative consequences for opposing the interests of the FDA (which, again is not primarily interested in the promotion of health for all humans or any particular human)? Is it paranoia to say that the FDA’s reversal of position in regard to Aspartame (“Nutrasweet”) may have been more of a business decision (a political decision) rather than a scientific decision?
I think that it is paranoid for people to think of the FDA as “an authority on science.” They do use science, but very selectively. So does the US Navy!
The US Navy also does research that they hide from the public. Certain other models are publicized to the public (such as “cholesterol is a poisonous demon that is manufactured by every liver on this planet in order to poison the host”). Are those models scientific? Those models simply promote the business interests that they promote.
Institutions are not authorities on science. To relate to an institution as an authority on science is… completely unscientific. However, if someone swears a commercial oath to respect the dogmas of an institution as if the institution was scientific and as if certain dogmas are scientific, that is understandable.
However, that is just business. That is just the bussiness of that particular religion of demon worship.
Modern medicine promotes hysteria in regard to the particular sacred words that are worshiped in that religion as demons. Is it good business? VERY GOOD! It is scientific? That could be TOTALLY irrelevant… to the interests of the institution.
What is the historical origin of the modern medical priesthoods? They are recent branches of the priesthoods of imperialist warfare (governments).
For instance, when Moses issued the order for the slaughter of the Midianites, weren’t the priests the highest ranking military authorities (the officers) in that religion of imperialism? Just prior to that (according to the ancient stories recorded in the Bible), when an Israelite named Phinehas snuck up on two people and killed them by driving a spear through both of them, he was rewarded with a special priesthood. (Numbers 25:13)
See Numbers 25:6-17 http://biblehub.com/niv/numbers/25.htm
6 Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman’s stomach. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.
10 The Lord said to Moses, 11 “Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites. Since he was as zealous for my honor among them as I am, I did not put an end to them in my zeal. [Note that “put an end to them” means the The Lord had started to wipe out the Israelites with a plague, but then stopped the ongoing extermination process.] 12 Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him. 13 He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites.”
14 The name of the Israelite who was killed with the Midianite woman was Zimri son of Salu, the leader of a Simeonite family. 15 And the name of the Midianite woman who was put to death was Kozbi daughter of Zur, a tribal chief of a Midianite family.